- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:18:50 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 7:16 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 13.06.2019 11:09, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> >>> On 13 Jun 2019, at 7:06 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 13.06.2019 10:46, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> Again, I hope we're not voting. >>> >>> No, we are not. >>> >>>> My argument: given that the whole point of SH is to have strongly interoperable, crisply defined data models, and that anything beyond "it's a string" is a minefield regarding URIs, the prudent thing to do here is to punt on this until we're more confident. It's entirely possible to do this in a future revision / extension, and we really need to ship this spec. >>> >>> I'm not convinced that adding things later will work well. >> >> Can you explain why? > > My impression is that we'd see exactly the same pusback for an extension > spec (or a revision). If it's not well-defined, and likely to cause interop problems (as is the case now), yes. If we figure out a good way to do it, why would there be? > >>> I also note >>> that if we really need to ship this spec, we should try harder to finish >>> it (this thread started four weeks ago). >> >> I've been ready to close these issues for all of that time. >> >>> Finally, I still think that allowing to map complex fields like "Link" >>> to this syntax would be good in that it would encourage people to (a) >>> include the generic SH parser and (b) actually use if for "Link". >> >> That could be said for many headers, it's not clear why Link is special here (and it's the only existing header that would *potentially* be compatible with this; it's not at all clear that the error handling around Link would allow its use). > > Link isn't special; it just happens to be a header field with relatively > complex syntax. > > You mention error handling: do you have something specific in mind? SH has defined, draconian error handling; Link has none, so we'd have to see what deployed parsers do. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 09:19:22 UTC