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

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

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707021648150.22734@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Yves,
>
> We're discussing this "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources"
> spec in a TAG telcon, and I discovered...
>
> 2.1. Content-Access-Control header
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20070618/#content-access-control
>
> Now as I recall, modern HTTP header fields are moving
> from Transfer-Encoding: to TE: to save packets.
> Can you confirm?

There is another reason to use TE: avoiding mixing the connection-level 
TE/Transfer-Encoding "couple" with the Accept-[Encoding|..] / 
Content-[Encoding|..]

That said, if you manage to have a shorter version of a long header while 
keeping the name obvious, it will be faster to parse. In the WD cited 
above, I would drop the 'Content'.

On a side note, I'm wondering why the WD states that the policy described 
is only safe for GET and HEAD... no OPTIONS?
Cheers,

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 21:07:30 UTC

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