- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:09:57 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
[Roy:] >> >In general: "header" and "headers" are synonyms for the entire message >> >header (as opposed to the body), whereas 'Set-proxy' is a "header field", >> >or just "field". I see the same confusion of terms in just about every >> >proposal to change HTTP, but it would be nice to stay consistent with >> >what I wrote for HTTP (based on what Ned wrote for MIME). [Koen:] >> When I started writing the TCN specs, I decided to ignore the `header >> field' usage in HTTP/1.1. I think `header', like we use it on the >> list, is both nicer and less confusing. [Larry:] >I don't think you should do this and ask you to change TCN to be >consistent with HTTP/1.1 and MIME documents. 2068 is not consistent itself: in most of the caching related text, it uses just `header', not `header field'. 2069 and 2109 use plain `header', as do the mailing list archives. So I plan to stick to `header' for now, because I think it is more common usage in HTTP. I'll add some words to the TCN terminology section to eliminate any confusion for MIME people. I think this whole issue is an editorial one, and I would like to hear Jim's comments on the subject. We can discuss a common editorial strategy in Munich. I am not violently opposed to `header field', but I think that the best route to consistency is to switch to plain `header' in the next revision of 2068. Koen.
Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 12:13:04 UTC