Re: #314: realm parameter syntax

On 2011-11-20 19:29, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

I think we don't know right now; if we find out in time, we can re-open 
the ticket.

>> 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."
> ?
> ...

As nobody else offered feedback, I went ahead and made this change; see 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 15:56:45 UTC