W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:49:14 +0100
Message-ID: <54D9A9EA.8080202@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-02-10 01:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>>> There are a number of subtle differences there, especially about the scope of applicability -- one of the most ill-defined areas in HTTP metadata.
>>
>> Anything besides the freshness issue?
>
> It's also a certainty issue -- if you send Accept-Encoding as a client, the server knows it can select one of those encodings, and doesn't have to worry about failure. If the server sends it and the client uses it, the client needs to be able to recover from failure gracefully.
>
> Let's flip it around -- what does reusing A-E buy us here? Are we trying to conserve registry space or something? :)

I think having "almost the same" functionality in two different header 
fields is confusing as well...
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 06:49:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC