RE: Content-* Semantics [i103]

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Now <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103>.
> 
> I very nearly made this an editorial issue, but I thought 
> that it would be good to get general agreement that Content-* 
> is *not* constrained to just those headers defined by 
> RFC2616. Anyone have a problem with that?

1. Anybody can create a new must-understand header by naming it
"Content-<something>." Is this desirable?

2. We cannot create must-understand headers without using that naming
scheme. It seems odd.

3. Are headers prefixed with Content-* always entity headers?

- Brian

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 02:05:40 UTC