W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2023

Re: signatures vs sf-date

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:03:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaM+ZsN8EbFdUAKe468bZAJA=tW7BKq2E8o6WtXp728qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 4:09 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> Bare items are simple; there's no optionality involved.
> What about a dictionary, where you're only looking for "x" (expected to
> be an integer), but the sender adds an extension parameter "y" as sf-date?
> A conforming parser (of the current spec) will reject the whole field
> value, and the recipient will not be able to see the value for "x".

Yeah, thats what happens in sfv, it fails the Dictionary parse and there's
no structured way to work around that :-(

Received on Monday, 23 January 2023 17:03:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:08 UTC