- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:21:58 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now i93; <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i93>. On 20/11/2007, at 1:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Hi, > > (follow-up to a discussion over at the HTML mailing list, see > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0271.html>). > > We currently say in Section 4.2: > > Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be > present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that > header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., # > (values)]. > > -- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.2> > > Now this seems to be kind of backwards, wouldn't it be *much* > clearer if it said: > > Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MUST NOT be > present in a message unless the entire field-value for that > header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., # > (values)]. > > That being said, do we have a recommendation for recipients when > that requirement is violated? I would assume that servers SHOULD > return a 400 (Bad Request), but what about clients? > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 05:22:08 UTC