W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: 305/306 response codes

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:45:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706171945.VAA16383@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: josh@netscape.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3544
Roy T. Fielding:
>In general:  "header" and "headers" are synonyms for the entire message
>header (as opposed to the body), whereas 'Set-proxy' is a "header field",
>or just "field".  I see the same confusion of terms in just about every
>proposal to change HTTP, but it would be nice to stay consistent with
>what I wrote for HTTP (based on what Ned wrote for MIME).

When I started writing the TCN specs, I decided to ignore the `header
field' usage in HTTP/1.1.  I think `header', like we use it on the
list, is both nicer and less confusing.


Received on Tuesday, 17 June 1997 12:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC