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

Re: [#202] reason phrase

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:52:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbe5AHKCE2hPUZ-O9d04Ef6fVxFAUB3FU=7Jg-Or5gH0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 .. having a :reason header field would be cheap and painless. It
can be made optional and, I suspect, most implementations will ignore
it, but for the folks who use it (and I have seen a few) it avoids a
bit of hassle.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-08-06 15:45, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>
>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/202
>>
>> #202 raises a question about the removal of the reason phrase.
>>
>> I haven't heard of cases where the reason phrase carries semantics.  I
>> should hope that no implementation ever does that.
>>
>> Those people that require semantics should be using headers.  I like
>> the current draft and would encourage people to leave this as it is.
>
>
> Right in principle.
>
> However, people who feel strongly about the reason phrase will then just go
> ahead and mint a new header field; it would save everybody a lot of time if
> they wouldn't have to and just use a predefined header field.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 15:53:26 UTC

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