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: Fri, 3 May 2019 19:04:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNDz=yuK+-U_bNmucTGQgKqSWfew18RifWT83moq0S5WOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 17:16, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>

'Link' is a parameterised list of URI references.  If we add a URI
reference type, and param-list is extended to allow URI references
alongside tokens, then it could maybe fit.

Though then there are "what to do if you receive a Link header value
with parameterised tokens instead of parameterised URI references"
stuff, which is why I'm still not 100% sold.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Friday, 3 May 2019 09:05:12 UTC

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