- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:00:43 +0100
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Honza Bambas <hbambas@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Youenn Fablet <youennf@gmail.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@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>
On 2016-01-19 20:47, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > ... > Hi Anne, > > I must admit, I'm not entirely clear as to what you're asking. > > In the case of headers that follow the #rule construct, any number of > intermediaries (or, for that matter, processing libraries, such as CGI > interfaces) are perfectly permitted to arrange the headers such that "X: > 1, 3, 4" is valid, iff X follows #rule syntax (c.f Section 4.3 of RFC > 2616). So any application that relies on how it was sent / received over > the wire is, in my mind, improperly coded, and not something that needs > to be supported. > ... Intermediaries are *always* allowed to this kind of folding; they are not expected to understand the syntax (#list or not). The only exception is, as Mark stated, Set-Cookie. See <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#field.order>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 13:01:34 UTC