W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:51:22 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ee323ab0-033f-fdfe-cbbc-59f1d1b8dc29@gmx.de>
On 02.05.2019 08:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <0bab4850-fbe6-a318-71b2-a0e89a74ae74@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes
> :
>> I don't think that the discussion in the github issue really concluded.
>> It would be nice if Poul-Henning would follow-up on my replies.
> I really dont have anything to add to what I said a month ago.

What I was referring to was the confusion about the syntax of the Link
header field.

> I can see the point, but not the compelling argument.
> First, It's not like we cannot move a URI in SH.  Sh-string are
> perfectly capable of that, and I put sh-binary in the spec as
> "Kernighan-Escape"[1], should that fail.
> Second,  If demarcating URIs in SH was important, somebody would
> surely have spotted the deliberate mistake in the strawman syntax
> I proposed a month ago ?

I don't accept that as a serious argument.

> So no, I'm 100% with Mark that URIs are not worth another several
> months of nothing much happening to this draft.
> ...
Once again, please let's argue based on facts, not opinions. Unless you
can prove that it'll take months to add this.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 06:51:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:01 UTC