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

Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 16:56:39 +0000
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <8113.1556816199@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <627257EE-FE78-40A6-AA91-9E488C53A8FC@gbiv.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" w

>This is not how the IETF is supposed to work on standards track proposals.

I think that era died with Jon Postel and the rubberstamping of H2 ?

I will 100% agree with you that the SH draft is a lot less ambitious
than pretty much anything which have been discussed along the way.

JSON died on the the general distaste for UniCode in HTTP headers,
and the fact that once it had been shoe-horned into HTTP/1 headers
it would no longer be JSON anyway.

Then I tried to synthesize a hierachial format, almost as powerful
as JSON but without those two problems, and that died because the
result did not look like HTTP headers used to look, and some people
were uneasy about the deep/recursive abilities once they started
thinking more about it.

Then we retreated further by restricting the depth to one, hoping
to at least curb the enthusiasm for inventing new syntax in this
space, and through successive cuttings of heels and toes, the SH
draft we have now has resulted.

If you have any ideas how this could have gone better, I'm all ears ?

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 16:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC