W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: #314: realm parameter syntax

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:29:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4EC9471E.1090706@gmx.de>
To: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-11-20 19:15, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
> Dear Julian,
> I support the final conclusion, but am only against the reasoning text.
> The fact that people did a "loose" thing does not mean
> that the followers should do as well.
> We have a direct reason to do so instead, doesn't we?
> If there are any major "senders" which have been sent token realms
> for a long time, it is much important than the current reason.

That's true; but I don't know whether this is the case. Do you?

> In this case, I propose the following:
>> Recipients are RECOMMENDED to accept both token and quoted-
>> string syntax as both have been sent by several HTTP servers
>> (and successfully accepted by common user-agents) for many years.
> # In this case, there should be an RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED", I think.

RECOMMENDED==SHOULD. If we did this, I think it clearly would need to be 
MUST, because I can't think of any "valid reasons" not to.

> If not, my proposal is a much simpler clause as:
>> Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-
>> string syntax for maximum input tolerability (both have been
>> accepted by common user-agents for many years).
> # or, s/might have to support/might be better supporting/
> Yes, input tolerability is a good thing (at least on this case).

Or, maybe:

"Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-string syntax 
for maximum interoperability with existing clients that have been 
accepting both notations for a long time."


Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:54 UTC