- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:59:35 +1100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
On 21 November 2016 at 20:23, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > I think using the angle brackets to say "this header is common > structure" for privately defined headers should be part of this > draft, so the future HPACKbis/H3 can semantically compress them > without needing a white-list. I'm not yet convinced here. If that usage came with some other guarantees (around whitespace use, for example, then maybe the benefits would outweigh the costs. I'm definitely opposed to recursion on the basis that complexity could kill this. > PS: I'm personally not terribly happy about the name "Common > Structure", but I found "Http-Header Data Model" even worse.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 00:00:07 UTC