Re: JSON headers

On 2016-07-10 11:45, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <>, Julian Reschke writes
> :
>>> I would go as far to make all repeat header a failure condition under the
>>> new format.
>> I'm not sure how that would be helpful, nor how that would be legal wrt
>> the base spec.
> In the case where we augment the existing spec with a new way of
> encoding the content in (new) headers, we can specify that repeat
> (new) headers encoded that way are illegal.
> ...

"A sender MUST NOT generate multiple header fields with the same field 
name in a message unless either the entire field value for that header 
field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)] or the 
header field is a well-known exception (as noted below)." -- 

But right now the spec *is* written to use the list construct, and I 
believe that's a good thing, as it's IMHO better to consider multiple 
instances as legal, and require the definition of the header field to 
deal with it.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 10 July 2016 09:57:49 UTC