Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields

On 2014–07–02, at 10:11 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 
> On 2 Jul 2014, at 3:49 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm split between demanding RST_STREAM+PROTOCOL_ERROR or ignoring
>> unknown values.  Slight preference for the former though.  I think
>> that's consistent with Matthew's proposal.
> 
> +1 for hard fail.

That gives applications a tough choice.

Perhaps the corresponding non-pseudo header should always be a fallback, implemented at the API level, if the pseudo header is absent?

I’m not clear on what appeal pseudo headers currently have at all, except to a punctuation fetish.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:22:16 UTC