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

Re: 305/306 response codes

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:26:45 PDT
Message-Id: <33A72B45.7B21@parc.xerox.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3548
> >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.

I don't think you should do this and ask you to change TCN to be
consistent with HTTP/1.1 and MIME documents.

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 1997 01:53:14 UTC

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