- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:41:25 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2016-07-12 09:10, Amos Jeffries wrote: > ... > Personally I hope we don't. > > I was fine with it as a way to write ABNF-like descriptions in future > RFCs to make everyones custom headers have a more generic syntax that > our parsers could handle easier. > > But using a textual representation on the wire for future improvements > is something we should be looking at avoiding, not encouraging. > > HTTP/2 HPACK offers some new possibilities by adding integer encoding > for header field-value that the recipient is not required to write in > textual format before processing. Lets not throw that advantage away. HPACK, as defined, does not allow it. A future version might (requiring to bump up the protocol version). One goal of a common syntax for field values of course is to later on take advantage of it, just the way you said. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 07:41:56 UTC