Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 10:26:04PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >And what about #4 consisting in indicating the encoding in the header
> >field *name* instead
> That's quite a hack, isn't it ?

Not that much after all when you think about it, because our parsers
will have to consider the field name to know how to decode the value.
Content-length will remain integer for example. Thus new fields could
be classified by their name using a prefix for easier sorting/testing.

> I'd prefer not to complicate things that way if I can...

Same for me, don't worry, which is why I'm only suggesting :-)


Received on Sunday, 16 October 2016 05:27:11 UTC