- From: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:28:24 +0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi there, After considering a lot your comments and other feedback I got regarding the "HTTP Information Request" proposal [1], I still believe that header negotiation is a good thing (tm) to have, so I'm resubmitting a request for comments to this list regarding this issue. Let me explain the idea: It seems to me that web based applications can really use additional HTTP headers but we cannot propose them because of the extra overhead they will introduce (like the HTTP Timezone Header). So, one solution will be to find a way for supporting optional headers that will be send on demand. This proposal does exactly this. Example: A client contacts a web server and sends a GET request. Server side script (SC) is able to take advantage of header (H) (example: Timezone information) to adjust its content. SC examines the headers and finds out that the client did not send that header. Server side script sends an extra header like: Header-Request: Timezone and goes on sending the content. Client side browser: a) Does not support "Header-Request" and ignores it, rendering the page b) Supports Header-Request and the 'Timezone' optional header and resubmits a GET request with the optional header included (It would act as a refresh). I believe that this has great potentials because it can be used as the basis for easier future HTTP expansion, without wasting bandwidth. I'd appreciate any comments you may have, especially any objections. Thank you in advance, Harhalakis Stefanos [1] http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--HTTP-Information-Request-tf3932478.html
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 12:28:42 UTC