- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:16:45 +0100
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-12-03 00:01, James Snell wrote: > All, > > I would like to take a quick moment to solicit feedback on the current > version of the HTTP Prefer Header specification: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-04 > > The draft should be pretty well self-explanatory. There are some > highly tentative pieces included in this draft that may likely be > removed in a future iteration. They have been included now primarily > for the purpose of soliciting feedback on their overall utility. > ... Will review. One thing I already noticed is that the spec does the same mistake most other header field definitions make; it defines an extensible syntax but then special cases the header field it defines itself. Parsing should be uniform. So, - if you take value-less tokens, you need to state whether x x= x="" are equivalent or not. - if values can be tokens or quoted-strings, you should state that both notations are equivalent, and are allowed everywhere, so are priority=100 and priority="100" the same thing? Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 11:17:17 UTC