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: Thu, 9 May 2019 09:50:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNCFSj-zGO-O=U4CZYBfqL-5FcnwmMZeB-oih7w1nAFC0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On Fri., 3 May 2019, 20:40 Julian Reschke, <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 03.05.2019 11:04, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> > ...
> >>> 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.
>
> Right,
>
> > 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.
>
> Why would that be a problem? It's just another error condition.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

That's fair.

I keep thinking about, like, schemas or profiles or Java generics. I wonder
if there's some sort of extension or informational document to write that
could help, or at least offer guidance.

Cheers
-- 
Matthew Kerwin
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2019 23:51:14 UTC

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