W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: The Title header

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:21:37 -0500 (CDT)
To: jg@zorch.w3.org
Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, 'Gisle Aas' <aas@a.sn.no>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960719121419.15687A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1144
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 jg@zorch.w3.org wrote:

> I made an editorial decision as editor that it should go (on discussion with
> Roy), as duplications of Mime, with different names, is Evil.
> In some future version of HTTP, one could note what headers in HTTP are adopted
> directly from MIME.

Is current practice relevant?  I can cite you hundreds of servers using it.
True this is a tiny fraction of all servers.

I don't think it is fair to call this decision an editorial decision.
If you had decided to change the name to the corresponding MIME header
that could be called editorial.  

As it is, a decision was made that prevents its use in other than
ad hoc ways.  This is a functionality which HTTP used to have and
no longer does.  Don't some search engines use it?

In fact, I would find an argument to make it mandatory persuasive.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Friday, 19 July 1996 10:29:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC