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

Reasoning:
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.

-=R


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