- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:48:38 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 2:40 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2015-12-31 18:54, Mike Bishop wrote: >> "persist" could as easily be a toggle; either present or not, no value. However, the existing syntax doesn't permit that, so we defined it to be =1. In this situation, I don't see a problem with hard-coding the value into the syntax. >> >> Fundamentally, the question is, "If I see persist=2, what should I do with it?" If I treat it as an unrecognized value, then it's equivalent to not being present, which may or may not be what the sender wanted. That means whoever is defining persist=2 would probably have done better to define morerefinedpersist=1-4, and leave persist intact for legacy clients to understand. >> >> If you're going to have to define a new token for other values to be useful anyway, let's formalize that and hard-code that there's only one acceptable value for this one. > > Sounds right to me. > > Any objections to changing this to simply "1"? That seems reasonable... > Or do we want to change it to %s"t" (for "true")? That's a breaking syntactic change at a very late stage; what benefit does it have? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 04:49:10 UTC