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: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:09:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706301909.VAA05399@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3598

>> >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.

2068 is not consistent itself: in most of the caching related text, it
uses just `header', not `header field'.

2069 and 2109 use plain `header', as do the mailing list archives.

So I plan to stick to `header' for now, because I think it is more
common usage in HTTP.  I'll add some words to the TCN terminology
section to eliminate any confusion for MIME people.

I think this whole issue is an editorial one, and I would like to hear
Jim's comments on the subject.  We can discuss a common editorial
strategy in Munich.  I am not violently opposed to `header field', but
I think that the best route to consistency is to switch to plain
`header' in the next revision of 2068.

Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 12:13:04 UTC

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