- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:07:22 +0200
- To: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-08-26 23:06, Bence Béky wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that the "clear" keyword was introduced > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/68970e3555ba77cd56418c036e601af520b17711> > to clear alternative service entries for a given origin, but I don't > seem to find any discussion about this on this mailing list. Also, I > was under the impression that when I brought it up at the last meeting, > there was no objection to advertising an empty string for this purpose. > I'm just curious what happened. As the others pointed out, the concern was a) that there are software components that do not handle empty values properly, and b) a concern to overload the concept of an empty list. I only finished the edits yesterday and was planning to send an email today :-) > I personally find it still better than the "origin itself" or "bogus > entry with ma=0" hacks, though not quite as clear and foolproof to > implement as an empty string. Alas, I would be interested to hear other > people's opinions, in case anyone has experience implementing it since > it was last discussed. > > Also, since "clear" clears entries including the ones in the same > header, why could there be multiple alt-values? Would instead of > > Alt-Svc = 1#alt-value > alt-value = clear / ( alternative *( OWS ";" OWS parameter ) ) > > the following: > > Alt-Svc = clear / 1#alt-value > alt-value = alternative *( OWS ";" OWS parameter ) > > not make more sense? > ... It would, but we are constrained by the HTTP header field semantics. A header field value is either list-shaped or it is not. We can't choose based on the field contents. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 05:07:55 UTC