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

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

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:14:23 -0600
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯)" <gavinp@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20101018031423.85fcb6a9.eric@bisonsystems.net>
The only place I see 'X-' defined is in MIME, not HTTP, so how can
HTTPbis deprecate it?  I thought HTTP header definitions qualified as
"standards-track extensions to this standard," i.e. HTTP headers are a
profile of MIME headers where there's overlap, where there's none it's
an HTTP MIME header, whereas X- implies "not MIME".  Not so?

-Eric

Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> RFC2045 doesn't define HTTP headers.
> 
> 
> On 18/10/2010, at 7:26 PM, Eric J. Bowman wrote:
> 
> > Alexey Melnikov 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.
> >> 
> > 
> > "In the future, more top-level types may be defined only by a
> > standards-track extension to this standard. If another top-level
> > type is to be used for any reason, it must be given a name starting
> > with "X-" to indicate its non-standard status and to avoid a
> > potential conflict with a future official name."
> > 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045
> > 
> > It's RFC 2045 you'd need to change, not HTTP...
> > 
> > -Eric
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 09:14:59 GMT

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