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

Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 17:15:22 +1000
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-Id: <34E2C344-88D7-41C4-B86F-45633B0A4C62@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


> On 2 May 2019, at 5:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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.

I don't see the connection.


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 3 May 2019 07:15:51 UTC

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