- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:59:23 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 8, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2015-08-27 07:07, Julian Reschke wrote: >> ... >>> 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. >> ... > > But then, RFC 7231 has (in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#header.vary>): > >> Vary = "*" / 1#field-name > > I'm not totally happy with this, but it's a precedent and maybe I'm just too pedantic :-) Just a tad. > Are people ok with changing the definition as proposed by Bence Béky, or should I open a ticket for rfc7231bis? I think it should be clear that HTTP allows zero, singular, and infinity as effectively separate potential value syntax for the same field name. I don't see any problem with that (assuming the zero and singular syntax don't contain a comma and the singular syntax is readily distinguished from 1#1value). IOW, it's a feature. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 10:59:43 UTC