+1 I like both #1 and #3 proposals, with a preference for #3 as it doesn't introduce any new mechanism. Not using #2 means that we will be able to drop some emission ordering stuff from HPACK. Hervé. > -----Original Message----- > From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz] > Sent: vendredi 22 novembre 2013 15:20 > To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: #305 Header ordering > > On 22/11/2013 4:37 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > > To be clear - what makes me somewhat comfortable with this approach is > that the default is that order is preserved; only if you know that ordering *is* > insignificant are you allowed to break it up. > > > > +1. > > Amos > > >Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 16:59:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:39 UTC