Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9110 (9162)

["Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 2, 2026, at 9:58 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.09.2026 um 20:59 schrieb [e-mail]:
>> ...
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> When a field name is repeated within a section, its combined
>>    field value consists of the list of corresponding field line values
>>    within that section, concatenated in order, with each field line
>>    value separated by a comma.
>>    For example, this section:
>>    Example-Field: Foo, Bar
>>    Example-Field: Baz
>>    contains two field lines, both with the field name "Example-Field".
>>    The first field line has a field line value of "Foo, Bar", while the
>>    second field line value is "Baz".  The field value for "Example-
>>    Field" is the list "Foo, Bar, Baz".
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> When a field name is repeated within a section, its combined
>>    field value consists of the list of corresponding field line values
>>    within that section, concatenated in order, with each field line
>>    value separated by a comma SP (", ").
>>    For example, this section:
>>    Example-Field: Foo, Bar
>>    Example-Field: Baz
>>    contains two field lines, both with the field name "Example-Field".
>>    The first field line has a field line value of "Foo, Bar", while the
>>    second field line value is "Baz".  The field value for "Example-
>>    Field" is the list "Foo, Bar, Baz".
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The original text says, "with each field line value separated by a comma", but in the example, it shows the field line values being separated by a comma SP (", ") instead of just a comma (","). Hence, either the given definition of "combined field value" is incorrect, or the example intended to demonstrate it is incorrect.
>> ...
> 
> If there's a problem here than it is the example, not the definition. The example assumes that whitespace is irrelevant; that is not true in general.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>