- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:45:22 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 16:48 11/18/97 PST, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: >Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes: > > Accept-Transfer = "Accept-Transfer" ":" > 1#( t-codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) > >Shouldn't that be: > > Accept-Transfer = "Accept-Transfer" ":" > #( t-codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) > >since one of your examples is: > > Accept-Transfer: > >(I know, I made the same mistake for Accept-Encoding in rev-00.) duh - yes, you're right >Also, since (as Roy has pointed out) the requirement for protecting >Accept-Transfer with Connection makes requests somewhat verbose, >perhaps we should be using a shorter name ... "Accept-Trans" >would save 6 bytes per request. > >I'm not even sure this header should be called "Accept-anything", >since it's a hop-by-hop mechanism and thus pretty much orthogonal >to content negotiation. Maybe "OK-Trans" (saving another 8 bytes >per request)? It's not as if any human being is supposed to be >reading these headers. The only reason for using an accept-* name is that its BNF falls into that category of header fields. The same could be said about Accept-Encoding along with a long list of other problems, but that is too late to fix now (see [1], for example). What about calling it Accept-TE - that saves 12 bytes. >P.S.: OK, I *do* include HTTP implementors in the set of human >beings :-) I think that's a different discussion altogether ;-) Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#ENCODING_NOT_CONNEG -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 09:53:32 UTC