v3.2: Enc style defaults #4899
Merged
v3.2: Enc style defaults #4899
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
handrews
added
the
media and encoding
baywet
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2025
ralfhandl
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2025
lornajane
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2025
This was referenced Aug 21, 2025
handrews
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2025
v3.1.2 Backport PR #4899 Encoding style default behavior
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While working on cookie-related style changes, I noticed that we are unclear on how
styledefaulting works for the Encoding Object. Specifically, in 3.1.1 we clarified that all ofstyle,explode, andallowReservedapply when any of those three are explicitly present. Otherwise,contentTypeapplies (even if it is absent- its defaults apply).So the default behavior for
styletakes place if either of the other two fields are there, but not if none of them are there (whethercontentTypeis there or not).This requires some rather complex schema changes and tests, which have not been done yet.
On the one hand, this is a clarification and should probably be backported to 3.1.2. On the other hand, it has schema changes, but more in the "we got the schema wrong" sense than in the "we're changing what was expected." I'm not entirely sure what to do with this for 3.1.2.