- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:03:29 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On 2008-01-24 17:37:54 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I see, thanks. Well, unless there's significant support for > changing the header syntax I rather not do it at this point. I'm indifferent on whether to reuse the Cache-Control syntax, but would prefer to get rid of the comma in the method statement. That would actually make the construction robust against (illegal, MUST NOT) shuffling of HTTP headers with the same field-name; while not totally necessary, that kind of robustness sounds like it's desirable, in particular when available at rather low cost. It would also simplify parsers, and keep them from breaking if and when a keyword in the header syntax ends up being an HTTP method. Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 12:03:41 UTC