W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:27:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4CBC04EB.7020202@gmx.de>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯)" <gavinp@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18.10.2010 10:16, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

I agree that something should be done wrt "x-".

But, as far as I can tell, "X-Purpose" is not widely deployed, so let's 
try to get this one right.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 08:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:29 GMT