- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:46:33 +0200
- To: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:37:30AM +0300, Kari hurtta wrote:
> | 1) Using the first character of the field-value as a signal that the encoding is in use is interesting. I was
> | thinking of indicating it with a suffix on the header field name (e.g., Date-J). Either is viable, but I
> | don't think it's a good idea to reuse existing header field names and rely on that signal to differentiate
> | the value type; that seems like it would cause a lot of interop problems to me. Defining a new header field
> | (whether it's Date-J or Date2 or whatever) seems much safer to me.
> |
> | 2) Regardless of #1, using < as your indicator character is going to collide with the existing syntax of the
> | Link header.
>
> Or perhaps use ':' as indicator? Causes double '::' on HTTP/1
>
> Date::1470205476
>
> Is this viable ?
It could but strictly speaking it will not be "::", it would just be ":"
to start the value, because your field above parses as ":1470205476" for
the value and will be rewritten like this along the path by many
implementations :
Date: :1470205476
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 06:49:17 UTC