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

Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:25:08 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNCOwhhZ55=zB_vcVRosSMaoOcAauqiPjma1J0JKPZwQtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
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.

  Matthew Kerwin
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