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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:50:08 +0200
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.twqt1ux664w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com> 

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:47:18 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> (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.

Well, that settles it then. Seems the HTTP gods agree on this one :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 13:50:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:22 GMT