Repeating single-value header fields

[mnot@…]

Section 4.2:

Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be
present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that
header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)].

Now this seems to be kind of backwards, wouldn't it be *much* clearer if it said:

Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MUST NOT be
present in a message unless the entire field-value for that
header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)].

That being said, do we have a recommendation for recipients when that requirement is violated? I would assume that servers SHOULD return a 400 (Bad Request), but what about clients?

[mnot@…]

I'm calling the decision on whether or not to accept the suggested text editorial.

Roy agreed to come up with text explaining why error handling isn't often specified in HTTP, to address the latter question (which is still a design issue).

[mnot@…]

Error handling split off to #186.

[ylafon@…]

See changeset [651]