Re: #231: Considerations for new headers

On 2011-10-11 09:25, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-10-11 00:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> +1
>> ...
>>>> o Whether the field is a single value, or whether it can be a list
>>>> (delimited by commas; see Section 3.2 of [Part1]).
>>> add...: "If it does not use the list syntax, how to treat messages
>>> where the header field occurs multiple times (a sensible default
>>> would be to ignore the header field, but this may not always be the
>>> right choice)."
>> ...
> -> <>
> Best regards, Julian

I added more, triggered by a recent discussion over in the websec WG 
about "Origin:":

        Furthermore, intermediaries and software libraries might combine
        multiple header field instances into a single one, despite the
        header field not allowing this.  A robust format enables
        recipients to discover these situations (good example: "Content-
        Type", as the comma can only appear inside quoted strings; bad
        example: "Location", as a comma can occur inside a URI).

-> <>

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 19:57:37 UTC