Re: #305 Header ordering

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:57 AM, RUELLAN Herve
<Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>wrote:

> +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.
>
>
I also prefer #3 to #1 with the same reason.

Best,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa



> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>