- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:39:04 +1000
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-appformats@w3.org
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... On 2007/07/03, at 7:07 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: > > 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 > > -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 04:39:28 UTC