- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 08:09:01 +0200
- To: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 09.08.2022 um 07:45 schrieb Austin William Wright: > > >> On Aug 6, 2022, at 05:25, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> "Similar" is not good enough. Existing parsers are likely to be tolerant >> in parsing due to existing buggy clients, and if we reuse these parsers >> the same problem will leak in here. > > Of course! I should have been clearer about what I’m suggesting. > > Given the choice between writing a new parser or forking an existing one, I’m suggesting that forking an existing one, or adding a argument/flag, may be easier than writing a new one in many environments. Technically, maybe. Procedurally, I don't think so. Do you expect existing server frameworks will extend their HTTP/1.1 parsers for this, and expose them as a standard API? > That said, I will still see if I can adapt the binary HTTP message format, including in such a way it could be sent by servers in response to Range requests. > > Thanks, > > Austin. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2022 06:09:16 UTC