Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values? from Mark Nottingham on 2013-01-15 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2013)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:47:35 +1100
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <86DE887E-B189-40D2-A867-C81CFB0434AB@mnot.net>

On 16/01/2013, at 10:37 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> We're talking about HTTP/1.x here, not 2.0. We can't retroactively make implementations non-conformant.
> 
> Ah, yes.  But we could stop encouraging implementors to merge multiple
> header instances.  Then we only have to say that it happens and
> explain the pitfalls.

It's extremely common to do something like:

Cache-Control: max-age=60, must-revalidate

Are you really saying that this should be discouraged?


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:48:04 UTC