On 02.05.2019 09:25, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > 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. I would be ok with that, but I would also agree to just allow anything, and to delegate error handling up one layer. > 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. > ... That's actually a good point, but then there's the recent <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/797>: > in Signed Exchanges, @jyasskin asks about having Parameterised Lists whose parameterised identifiers are things other than Tokens. Best regards, JulianReceived on Thursday, 2 May 2019 07:56:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC