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

Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 07:15:33 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHND1R7DVMPxkwZ_EVV=dTpG4tz+y-6v+S8RrJWcdBEzzVQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 03:54, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Thanks for the lively discussion we had on this topic! However, it looks like the conversation has petered out. As a working group, we should come to some consensus on the best way forward for this issue.
> 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.
> Best,
> Tommy (chair hat on)

Swinging between C and A.

I wouldn't want to attempt B without having a solid understanding of
how it affects other things, like automatic concatenation.  Plus not
including it now leaves a greener field in which to invent something
later (null?).

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2019 21:16:03 UTC

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