- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:46:25 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:40:12 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > If we do this, we'd really like to do this consistently in both > draft-nottingham-http-link-header and draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http, and > potentially even define it in HTTPbis (maybe just as a recommended > syntax component for new header fields). Don't many headers accept more bytes there? E.g. cookie related headers. Making HTTP more flexible makes sense to me. Or maybe study some existing implementations first to see how this is commonly implemented. Do many use a generic parser? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 15:47:09 UTC