Ohhh and yes section 2.3 doesn't comply with 2.6.... but 2.6 does only apply to "most" values.
... and you wonder why implementations of these specs sometimes get it wrong:) On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 00:32 Greg Wilkins, <gr...@webtide.com> wrote: > My first thought is that Nils could be right when he says that getValues > is needlessly removing quotes. > > That method was never really well specified as it's based in neither the > http nor servlets specification. It was originally a jack of all trades > method that worked for most cases. > > We've not moved much of our previous handling to other methods like getCSV > and getQualityCSV, with more precise behaviour. > > In this case, getCSV passed a boolean to keep quotes will probably do the > job you need. > > I'll do a bit more of a review and comment more tomorrow if I get a > chance,... But maybe Monday. > > Cheers > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 22:28 Joakim Erdfelt, <joa...@webtide.com> wrote: > >> Per the spec you linked ... >> >> ETag = entity-tag >> >> entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag >> weak = %x57.2F ; "W/", case-sensitive >> opaque-tag = DQUOTE *etagc DQUOTE >> etagc = %x21 / %x23-7E / obs-text >> ; VCHAR except double quotes, plus obs-text >> >> >> That means the "ETag" field is an "entity-tag" >> Which can start with an optional "weak", and must have an "opaque-tag" >> >> The definition fo "weak" is that it is always the 2 characters "W/" and >> the case must be preserved. >> >> The "opaque-tag" is almost the same as what the http/1.1 spec level >> "quoted-string" definition is. >> Except that it doesn't allow space character. >> >> Greg, what's you take on this? >> This would mean a new Special Case handling for a field value that isn't >> "Set-Cookie". >> There's some accepted errata published after RFC7232 about ETag, but only >> related to space in etagc. >> No errata on RFC7230 about other special case handling of field-values. >> >> Joakim Erdfelt / joa...@webtide.com >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Cantor, Scott <canto...@osu.edu> wrote: >> >>> On 10/29/20, 4:54 PM, "jetty-users-boun...@eclipse.org on behalf of >>> Joakim Erdfelt" <jetty-users-boun...@eclipse.org on behalf of >>> joa...@webtide.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Your Example 2: >>> > If-Match: W/"ab3>5ef1bc78", W/"5be73a9c523" >>> > >>> > This is a field of name "If-Match". >>> > It has 2 values, both of which are in violation of the spec. >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-2.3 >>> >>> Am I missing something? That middle one seems to explicitly match your >>> examples that you think are in violation... >>> >>> (I don't mean to barge into the thread, but I have some uses of ETag in >>> our code stack and I want to be able to accurately assess how we're using >>> it.) >>> >>> -- Scott >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jetty-users mailing list >>> jetty-users@eclipse.org >>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit >>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jetty-users mailing list >> jetty-users@eclipse.org >> To unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users >> >
_______________________________________________ jetty-users mailing list jetty-users@eclipse.org To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
