- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:16:08 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯)" <gavinp@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Adam Barth wrote: >On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov ><alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: > > >>Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> >>>I think the only really bad/damaging thing here is starting with an "X-" >>>header. >>> >>> >>Maybe it is time to deprecate the X- convention, as it doesn't seem to be >>working. >> >> >Okiedokes: > >https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47802 > > Hi Adam, I think you've misunderstood my comment. I don't think that headers starting with "X-" should be treated specially. Historically many X-* headers got widely deployed, at which point renaming them doesn't really work. That why I said "to deprecate X- convention". If one want to use a new header field, than using something without X- might be better. In this particular case, if X-Purpose is already deployed, it is probably Ok to leave it be as is. However if changing to "Purpose" can be done at this stage without much backward compatibility problems, than that should be done. Regards, Alexey P.S. This is my personal opinion, HTTPBIS WG or email experts might have other opinions on the subject. So consensus is yet to be reached.
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 08:16:49 UTC