On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 15:23, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > (Editor hat on) > > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/782> > > PHK and I have discussed this, and I think we agree that this issue should be closed without any change to the specification. > > Any further discussion? We'd like to get this spec shipped. > > Thanks, > For what it's worth, I'm still recovering from my ordeal with file:// so the thought of touching URLs again is unappealing. The simplest thing to do (aside from "nothing") would be to use whatever already exists. So if we were to define a URI type I would recommend using whatever "Link:" already uses. Looking at RFC 8288, that's "URI-Reference" from 3986. However, I think Link is a bad example to build off because it is a "parameterised" thingy, but we've already restricted the set of parameterisable thingies in SH to just sh-tokens. So we couldn't recreate Link in SH even if we wanted to, without even more work. So why bother adding a new type for it? And we don't need a structured type for Location, because that's not structured per se. So I'm for closing with no action. Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 07:25:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC