W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2008

Re: XHR header blacklist rationale

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:11:22 +0200
Message-ID: <483C32AA.50505@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I also don't see why the client shouldn't have the option to set the 
>> Expect header; keep in mind that although 100-continue is the only 
>> expectation code defined in RFC2616, other codes can be defined as well, 
>> and it's not XHR's business to close that door.
> I think whether the client uses `Expect: 100-continue` is a decision
> similar to deciding whether the client uses, say, a Transfer-Encoding.
> The client may also be specifically configured to use a different
> version of the protocol, like IE is configured to talk HTTP/1.0 to
> proxy servers by default. Besides, the client may not even handle the
> 100-continue response properly.

What about "Expect: foobar"?

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 16:12:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:27 UTC