W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2007

Re: long HTTP header field name in WD-access-control

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:47:18 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640708080647y786f7b47i44d8b67933e72e53@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, public-appformats@w3.org

On 7/30/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:39:04 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> > My .02; I'm not too worried about saving bytes (at least on this scale),
> > but I do wonder if that "Content" prefix is justified...
>
> Hmm, I can find me suggesting the name Content-Access-Control as far back
> as 200605 but I'm pretty sure someone else suggested it to me first. I'm
> thinking it was Mark Baker, but I can't find the relevant minutes/e-mail.
>
> (Personally I'd be fine with naming it Access-Control.)

I don't think I would have suggested that name.  The Content-* headers
are defined to be entity headers, whereas Access-Control would
presumably be a response header.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 13:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:07 UTC