Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

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:
> 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.


- if you take value-less tokens, you need to state whether




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




the same thing?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 11:17:17 UTC