Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Structured Fields first #1666

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Sep 16, 2021
Merged

Structured Fields first #1666

merged 3 commits into from Sep 16, 2021

Conversation

mnot
Copy link
Member

@mnot mnot commented Sep 13, 2021

This strengthens the language around Structured Fields so that it's clear they're preferred, and targeted fields are now primarily defined as structured fields.

It still leaves using a Cache-Control parser as an option. If we want to go further, we could remove the paragraph starting with 'However,...' and the two bullet points below that.

Fixes #1606.

@mnot mnot merged commit 264ec8f into main Sep 16, 2021
@mnot mnot deleted the mnot-1606 branch September 16, 2021 04:45
Copy link
Contributor

@martinthomson martinthomson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like the right balance: this is a profile of SF that a CC parser will accept, assuming that a CC parser won't choke on parameterization of "no-cache" or similar.

draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control.md Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-httpbis-targeted-cache-control.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@ioggstream
Copy link
Contributor

Reverted in c7dfa09 for the record

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Parsing as Structured Fields: MAY or SHOULD?
3 participants