> Huh? To me, it doesn't make sense to add a header to the HTTP > spec whose only function is "to be determined". Either we need > it and its function should be specified, or we aren't sure and > so we shouldn't put it in the spec. I already have a use for it to convey diagnostic information, so it will be going in the first draft. >... > The only reason to introduce a specific header now (in HTTP 1.1) > would be if it had to be protected from naive proxy behavior. > That is, "this header should not be forwarded" or "this header > must be rewritten when forwarding." But I have not seen any > proposals for such protection, and I can't think of any reason > why this would actually be needed here. Huh? (my turn :) That is written explicitly into the purpose of the Connection header, and is why the Connection header consists of a list of field-names, and thus explains why the header field is called Keep-Alive (the same name as the Connection keyword). .....Roy (and no, I am not going to change "Keep-Alive" to something more meaningful -- the name was chosen via the www-talk discussions of last year and is no longer changeable)Received on Tuesday, 17 October 1995 17:51:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC