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

Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 20:19:34 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <4d86289c-26fb-5add-5734-f4aff8cdb7fd@gmx.de>
On 02.05.2019 19:59, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <20190502174129.GF32325@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>> I think that the opposition against support of empty values only came
>>from an almost inexistent need at a moment [...]
> As far as I could tell, that was a completely nonexistent need, but
> to me it matters little if we are trying to generalize from only
> one example or from no example at all.
> And please remember that SH is a meta-specification, a specification
> to write other specifications with.
> If a documented use case appears and a concensus for how to meet
> its needs can be found, publishing a SHbis will not hurt anybody,
> or create any compatibility issues since the specs that references
> SHorig are not changed by SHbiss mere existence.


So do yo envision implementers to have multiple code paths for SH,
SHbis, SHbisbis???

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 18:20:29 UTC

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