At 12:09 04/02/26, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>RFC 2369 appears to set the best precedents, including delimiting within
><...>, allowing FWS within those <...> (to be eliminiated before use as a
>URI),
I have adopted these suggestions.
>and provision for comma-separated lists of such URIs.
I haven't adopted this suggestion, because multiple headers can do
the same job. While I have received comments asking me to go to
full RFC 2396 syntax, I have also received comments to keep things
simple. I hope what I've done is an acceptable compromize.
>Since the List-Archive header and the proposed [List-]Archived-At header
>are quite likley to occur in the same message, it would be a great pity if
>they did not follow the same syntactic conventions.
For a consumer, they do. Producers easily can get it right.
>And I would much prefer a comma-separated list of URIs than multiple
>Archived-At headers. For a start, it gives you a way to express some
>priority between the various alternatives (as in the List-Archive header).
I'm not sure that's needed. Of course thery may be some odd cases where
it might be helpful, but I don't want to overdesign the proposal.
>And then, multiple headers with the same name are Bad Thing for other
>reasons (for example if ever you come to have digital signatures of
>headers, such as have been mentioned recently in other threads on this
>list).
If there are digital signatures of headers, those digital signatures
have to be able to deal with multiple headers, because there are some
already. Doing that is not impossible.
Regards, Martin.