W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Feedback on Access Control

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:45 +0100
To: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t5hkmvpz64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:03:29 +0100, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.

We already got rid of the comma the first time someone spotted the issue.  
What makes you think this was not resolved? Having said that, you already  
re-raised this resolved (I think) issue in your e-mail I still have to  
reply to. Please don't create so much overhead :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 12:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:21 UTC