- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:27:23 +0200
- 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 UTC