W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:27:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVk99msvfkM8DVd2w95=UWypfzRMtY8LAw1n1DKK=2Gvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on
> OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a
> 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case.

That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request.

I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What
do others think?
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 15:28:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC