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? - BrianReceived on Thursday, 28 February 2008 02:05:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:35 GMT