W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:08:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CANh-dXkBspEW09ZrurRaqVMNj5MttzhAXJRZGL4uK6OBEyjCGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:28 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 24.02.2020 00:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > ...
> >> That said, the title probably should also change from "Structured
> >> Headers for HTTP" to something like "Structured Field Values for HTTP
> >> Headers and Trailers".
> >
> > I'm not against that, although it's quite wordy. Anyone else have
> thoughts?
>
> Or just "Structured Field Values for HTTP".
>

For what it's worth, I think this title would make it hard to find for
people who aren't experts in HTTP. We think of these things as headers, so
that ought to be in the title and the common name. "Structured HTTP Header
and Trailer Field Values"? I do think the original title is defensible:

*
https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#header.fields
says
that "header fields" are colloquially known as just "headers", so no need
for the "field".

* Very few people use trailers, and those who do are used to looking for
"header" documentation, so no need to mention them in the title.

* The boundary between the field name and value was already structured
before this I-D, so by adding structure to the values, this document
achieves structured fields.

Jeffrey
Received on Monday, 24 February 2020 19:08:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 24 February 2020 19:08:50 UTC