W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: http-equiv

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:15:46 +0100
Message-ID: <49509E32.7060504@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> feedback on "Define how to register new http-equiv values. (credit: ma) 
>> (whatwg r2548)":
>>
>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#other-pragma-directives>:
>>
>> "...Such extensions must use a name that is identical to a 
>> previously-registered HTTP header defined in an RFC, and must have 
>> behavior identical to that described for the HTTP header...."
>>
>> HTTP headers do not need to be defined in RFCs, there's a registry for 
>> it. See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4229>, 
>> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html>, and 
>> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html>.
> 
> Right; the idea is to reduce the number of headers that are used here, by 
> having a higher barrier to entry than just registration. (It's a bit like 
> "RFC required" from RFC5226.)

That barrier is not particularly high, unless you require 
standards-track RFCs.

I really don't see the point defining something else than the IETF does 
for this purpose.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 08:16:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT