- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:01:14 +0100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-12-17 22:58, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:12:05PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> However >>> the semi-colon after 100-continue was not supposed to happen in 2616, >>> which is why I think other implementations might get trapped. >> >> That is true, but it *is* an edge case. > > Agreed. > >> The alternative is to make the grammar different from Prefer:; or to >> change Prefer: as well. > > We have enough different grammars, let's try to factor them as much as > possible! +10 >> In practice, most parsers that understand ";" separated parameters allow >> "empty" parameters (see, for instance, my Content-Disposition test >> cases). We can pretend this is wrong, or we can try to bring a bit more >> sanity to this. >> >> In any case, the fact that existing implementations might trip over >> something that (for Expect!) will only happen in test cases doesn't seem >> to be a big problem to me. > > Well, it's possible that in a few years we see new implementations write > their Expect header as $expectation ";" $extension but by this time, server Example? > implementations will have applied the rules from the new RFC and will support > the extra semi-colon. I'm not quite worried, I just wanted to outline that > *some* existing implementations are not compatible with the proposal, that's > all. Which reminds me that this needs to go into the Changes-from-2616 section. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 22:02:24 UTC