- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:57:58 +0000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+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