<div class="gmail_quote">2011/2/3 Gregory Collins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:greg@gregorycollins.net">greg@gregorycollins.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz<br>
<<a href="mailto:aristidb@googlemail.com">aristidb@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="im">
> I did not even claim that I want to ditch CIByteString, just that I am<br>
> unsure how to proceed with it.<br>
> Note that you yourself do not even use CIByteString consistently: You use it<br>
> for the header names in WAI, but not for Method, and not at all in<br>
> http-enumerator.<br>
<br>
</div>According to the spec, methods are not case-insensitive, the defined<br>
ones are explicitly uppercase and "extension-method" has type "token",<br>
see RFC 2616 section 5.1.1. Headers *are* case-insensitive (see<br>
section 4.2) so it's convenient to treat them as such in datatypes,<br>
especially where lookup is concerned -- hence CIByteString.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, sorry, my mistake. I thought both were case-insensitive and failed to look it up.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Re: method, Snap uses a datatype because 5.1.1 gives an explicit<br>
enumeration, but you could do it either way and have a reasonable<br>
rationale.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>True. I am not really attached to either approach, even if it may have seemed differently, I just need explanations.</div><div><br></div><div>So, I think for now I may just implement both variants, and provide conversion functions. </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aristid</div></div><br>