Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Could you explain why it's compelling?

It's already possible to map a link header to the existing data structures (there are a couple of ways you'd do it).  It's true that the syntax wouldn't be identical to a Link header, but that hasn't been a goal for other parts of SH; in this sort of situation, we've assumed that some mapping function would be necessary (e.g., negotiating to send the new header as SH-Link, or some other mechanism).

I'd be much more supportive of doing a URI type if we could get agreement for *and* implementation of a common data model for URIs in SH. However, it appears that there's disagreement about that; browser folks want to reuse the WHATWG URI specification (which is sensible, from their viewpoint), whereas others don't like that spec. Exposing it as just a string doesn't seem to add much at all.

We could talk about this a lot more, but I suspect it would take at least a few months to conclude the discussion. I'd rather ship the spec; if we can agree on a new type down the road, we can always add it with an update.

Cheers,



> On 2 May 2019, at 3:39 pm, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 02.05.2019 07:15, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> (Editor hat on)
>> 
>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/782>
>> 
>> PHK and I have discussed this, and I think we agree that this issue should be closed without any change to the specification.
>> 
>> Any further discussion? We'd like to get this spec shipped.
> 
> I don't think that the discussion in the github issue really concluded.
> It would be nice if Poul-Henning would follow-up on my replies.
> 
> FWIW, my latest comment was: "I think the ability to apply this to the
> Link header field is pretty compelling.".
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/