W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Issue # 164: HTTP Method Case

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:22:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd8zHYrJ=oCEqtToiPzBV3uWo76gnRZ0-_=fH1rf+9-mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Martin-- this data should be as it was in HTTP/1.1

1) It works.
2) The methods are so very extremely likely to already be represented in
the compressor, that we shouldn't much care about what is in them anyway.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 3 July 2013 10:43, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Need to clarify whether or not HTTP methods in 2.0
> > are case sensitive or not.
> HTTP/2.0 is actually silent on the issue.  And I believe that it can
> remain so.
> HTTP/2.0 makes header field names lowercase (and mandates that), which
> is fine because that has a performance and compression advantage.  A
> similar argument could be made for any header field value, :method not
> being particularly special in this regard.
> In this specific case, if we were to mandate a particular case, I'd
> advocate uppercase.  I believe that some code breaks if it receives a
> 'get' instead of a 'GET', so uppercase would have to be the choice.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 18:22:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC