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

Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 20:20:22 +0200
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <20190514182022.GA17146@1wt.eu>
Hello Tommy,

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:46:11AM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> I'd like to ask everyone to reply with which option they prefer of the of
> following, so we can get a sense of the group's opinion:
> 
> A. Leave the document as is, not defining empty header values for SH (as requested by the editors). As noted on the list, this can allow future revisions to add support.
> B. Define empty header values for SH (as the issue requests).
> C. Do not allow empty header values for SH, but add formal text to the document explaining how to handle empty values.
> 
> Please evaluate these based on what you think will help us converge and ship
> this document, and note that this is deciding how we define formal Structured
> Headers, not all or previous HTTP headers.

I'd prefer B first, then C as a fallback. I'm not strong on this, I just
find it too bad to purposely not support a single feature which already
works even if seldom used. But I won't make a fuss if we don't have it,
this will only leave me with a feeling of half-finished work.

Thanks,
Willy
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2019 18:20:57 UTC

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