W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation

From: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:05:17 +0300
To: "Robert Brewer" <fumanchu@aminus.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200708191205.17737.v13@priest.com>

On Sunday 19 August 2007, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Stefanos Harhalakis wrote:
> > There is no indention at all to restrict HTTP! Just
> > to provide a way for extending it with headers that
> > aren't required everywhere.
>
> It already exists: SEND THE HEADERS.
[...]
> Run that and inspect the traffic with a tool like TamperData
> for Firefox. Did the "Header-Request" header make it to the
> client? (Yes.) Pretend you're a client that understands the
> received "Header-Request", and send a "Timezone" header in
> your next request. Did it make it to the server? (Yes.) Did
> the server understand it? (Yes.) Are we violating the HTTP
> spec? (No.) Did we make any changes to the HTTP spec? (No.)
> Would there be any difference in the messages if we added
> "Header-Request" to the spec? (No.) So why do it? Masochism?

  What you wrote is what I proposed and I never said that the HTTP spec need 
to be changed. I wrote to this list because Julian suggested it as a place 
for conversasion to take place for the original "Timezone" draft which I 
submitted some months ago. The 'header-request' is intended to be a separate 
RFC from 2616.

  What you described is exactly what I'm proposing... and if I get any 
comments about it, I'll summarize them and submit a draft. I'm sorry if you 
thought that I'm proposing this as something that should be included in RFC 
2616.
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2007 09:05:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT