- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:45:24 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-02-11 03:41, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 11 February 2015 at 05:07, Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote: >> I just created a pull request for handling it: >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/714 > > At this point, an RFC Editor's note is probably more appropriate: Why? The spec isn't even approved yet, no? > With some of my own edits: > > OLD: > - The static table was created by listing the most common > - header fields that are valid for messages exchanged inside a > - HTTP/2 connection. > NEW: > + The static table was created from the most frequent header > + fields used by popular web sites, with the addition of > + HTTP/2-specific pseudo-header fields > + (see <xref target="HTTP2" x:fmt="of" > + x:rel="#PseudoHeaderFields"/>). > > I would not keep the explanation about why the list isn't as good as > we know it could be. I absolutely think that it's needed, because otherwise the same question is going to come up again and again. The best fix of course would be to fix the list. I don't understand why that is so hard. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 07:45:59 UTC