- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:13:00 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Assigning for -19. On 08/02/2012, at 7:49 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 04:13:25 UTC