- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:36:08 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-09-08 12:59, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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. OK, adjusted in <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/2757d7bfa244c33df5d4fdf8604c60f6645a7816>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2015 18:36:42 UTC