- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:05:41 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-01-11 05:48, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> 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... Ack. >> 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? The intent was to have a more readable value. Are there any implementations out there this would break? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 07:06:16 UTC