- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:30:35 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I'm still arguing that we shouldn't have a HeaderMap class at all, and > instead just use normal Map objects. And in places where we take a map > as an argument, also allow plain JS objects that are then enumerated. You have not explained how that would work however. Adding headers might have to change the mode of the request. We cannot allow all headers. A Map does not even map to how HTTP headers work. As discussed in https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/300 headers are a list where you can have duplicate names and ordering is sometimes significant. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 08:31:05 UTC