- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:49:53 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-02-07 21:46, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 08/02/2012, at 7:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-02-07 20:46, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Now<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/343>. >>> >>> >>> On 07/02/2012, at 12:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>>> Right now, this is all we say about chunk-extensions (beyond the BNF, etc.): >>>> >>>>> All HTTP/1.1 applications MUST be able to receive and decode the >>>>> "chunked" transfer-coding and MUST ignore chunk-ext extensions they >>>>> do not understand. >>>> >>>> Since this is an extensibility point, we should give guidance on how it should be used. >>>> >>>> I can't really see establishing a chunk-extension registry; they don't have any semantic, and AFAIK haven't really been used in anger. >>>> >>>> What do people think about adding advice along these lines: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> Use of chunk-extensions by senders is deprecated; they SHOULD NOT be sent and definition of new chunk-extensions is discouraged. >>>> """ >>>> >>>> ? >> >> Works for me. >> >> A future generation of HTTP spec authors can un-deprecate when needed :-) > > > $DIETY have mercy on their souls. > ... :-) Proposed change: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/343/343.diff> Best regard, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 08:53:19 UTC