W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Re: Semantics of absent header field versus header field with empty value

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:57:42 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <52ED9E2C-D5B2-4EBB-82B4-586F560EA643@mnot.net>
To: "Backman, Annabelle" <richanna@amazon.com>
HTTP permits it, yes. It's considered questionable practice, though, because some implementations might not be able to make the distinction, and/or strip empty fields from the section.

Cheers,


> On 1 Mar 2022, at 10:30 am, Backman, Annabelle <richanna@amazon.com> wrote:
> 
> In light of the discussion regarding support for absent header fields in HTTP Message Signatures, I'd like to ask the perhaps obvious question: does HTTP permit header fields to make a semantic distinction between the header field being absent from a message, and the header field being present with field value equal to the empty string? If so, are there real-world use cases that people are aware of for this that might help inform that discussion?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> —
> Annabelle Backman (she/her)
> richanna@amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 28 February 2022 23:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 28 February 2022 23:58:04 UTC