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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:39:04 +1000
Message-Id: <23EE1317-5150-4F71-AF58-B84FF1897CAF@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-appformats@w3.org
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@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

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