Re: JSON headers

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2016-07-10 11:45, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <[e-mail]>, Julian Reschke writes
> :
>
>>> I would go as far to make all repeat header a failure condition under the
>>> new format.
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would be helpful, nor how that would be legal wrt
>> the base spec.
>
> In the case where we augment the existing spec with a new way of
> encoding the content in (new) headers, we can specify that repeat
> (new) headers encoded that way are illegal.
> ...

"A sender MUST NOT generate multiple header fields with the same field 
name in a message unless either the entire field value for that header 
field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)] or the 
header field is a well-known exception (as noted below)." -- 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.3.2.2.p.2>

But right now the spec *is* written to use the list construct, and I 
believe that's a good thing, as it's IMHO better to consider multiple 
instances as legal, and require the definition of the header field to 
deal with it.

Best regards, Julian