W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: #231: Considerations for new headers

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:16:25 -0400
Message-Id: <6BBCA007-DD39-47EF-B04D-817D77C29391@opera.com>
Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

Le 29 juin 2011 à 06:17, Mark Nottingham a écrit :
> 3.1 Considerations for Creating Header Fields
[…]

Not sure if it's true, but in case it is. After this 

>  Under no conditions can the "Close" field-name be registered, because it is reserved for use as a connection token.


Should there be a mention discouraging the rewriting of headers to change the behavior of an existing header. 

	"Under no conditions a new header should 
	redefine requirements of an existing 
	header." 

I think about the case of proxies rewriting headers and then changing the behavior of the message. Mark already commented on this thread.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4798461/cneonction-and-nncoection-http-headers

Cneonction 
nnCoection

It is still strange to me :) 


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 20:16:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:47 GMT