- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:55:46 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17.10.2010 20:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> 2) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/244>: "state that
> repeating parameters are invalid"
>
> Addressed in "latest" draft with
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1024>.
> ...
I should have mentioned what I added:
"Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated; a header field value with
multiple instances of the same parameter &SHOULD; be treated as invalid."
This goes a bit further than post HTTP header field definitions in
saying "SHOULD be treated as invalid", which is equivalent to "SHOULD
NOT do error recovery".
Maybe this should be reduced to a simple statement of fact ("is
invalid"), without requiring any specific behavior (*)?
Best regards, Julian
(*) I understand that some among us believe that error handling needs to
be specified; but *if* we do this (and I don't think we should), we
should be consistent in doing that.
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 12:56:28 UTC