- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:16:25 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 UTC