- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:00:36 -0600
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Considering this proposal elsewhere in HTTPbis: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JulSep/0388.html By your logic, since user agents (browsers) would need to continue to support X-Moz and X-Purpose, it would be incorrect to define the Purpose header and leave it at that, without also providing some language instructing user agents how to parse X-Moz and X-Purpose, as they are in fact used in the wild. I see describing how to parse the obsoleted headers as standardizing nonconformant (unspecified) syntax. Just because it was once done this way, and adopted in more than one browser, isn't relevant to the definition of a Purpose header. Quite relevant to browser development, not relevant to HTTP. -Eric
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:01:42 UTC