RE: #305 Header ordering

+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
> 
> 
>