W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: Content-* Semantics [i103]

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:05:32 -0800
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001901c879ae$6712e0e0$6401a8c0@T60>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC