- From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:55:45 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, last-call@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure@ietf.org
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:49:58AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 19.05.2020 01:20, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 May 2020, at 7:23 am, Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > You saw > > > > > > > > > > An empty List is denoted by not serializing the field at all. > > > > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > That's about serialization. > > > > > > > > 4.2.1 seems to parse an empty string into an empty list. > > > > > > > > AFAICT, that's in conflict with the ABNF. > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > > > As per S 1.2 [1], the ABNF is not for parsing; it's for 'illustrat[ing] the range of acceptable wire representations.' > > > > The ABNF requires at least one member because sending an empty field value is not good practice; it's not something we encourage. > > ... > > So the real inconsistency here is that sending an empty value is not ok > (forbidden?, not encouraged?), but an empty string is a valid parser input. That does seem like a key topic for the DISCUSS ballot I just submitted. (I wanted to get the rest of my comments available, and don't intend for my DISCUSS text to be "the final word"; let's please continue this discussion and go for clarity.) -Ben
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2020 02:56:07 UTC