W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2016

Re: HTTP header representation in Fetch

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:34:19 +1100
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Honza Bambas <hbambas@mozilla.com>, Youenn Fablet <youennf@gmail.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, Alex Christensen <achristensen@webkit.org>, Edward O'Connor <hober@apple.com>, Ben Kelly <bkelly@mozilla.com>, Nikki Bee <nikkicubed@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A156A4DC-9003-409A-B5E9-85ED59370102@mnot.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

> On 19 Jan 2016, at 8:27 pm, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> I thought this was important for cookies (that they could not be
> combined), but there's nothing in RFC 7230 that supports that.

The relevant bit is <http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.3.2.2>

Note: In practice, the "Set-Cookie" header field ([RFC6265]) often appears multiple times in a response message and does not use the list syntax, violating the above requirements on multiple header fields with the same name. Since it cannot be combined into a single field-value, recipients ought to handle "Set-Cookie" as a special case while processing header fields. (See Appendix A.2.3 of [Kri2001] for details.)

It doesn't talk explicitly about Cookie.

Reminder - we (the HTTP WG) are talking about re-opening the cookie spec to do surgery; if you have suggestions on improvements (and this might be a good place), see:

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 04:34:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 January 2016 04:34:53 UTC