- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:28:52 +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 08:05, Julian Reschke 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. > ... -> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/bc0e722fc4340f89b7b2e7029f5e2c4be00d84cd> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 08:29:27 UTC