Re: What we call "headers"

--------
In message <CF788613-EEE1-4321-BE98-780E7C77F607@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>A little while back we made some changes in http-core regarding 
>terminology and headers. This seems to have caused some confusion and
>comment, so I thought I'd summarise where I think we're at (Julian and
>Roy might want to chime in if they feel differently or want to add
>nuance).

I appreciate that you are trying to disambiguate the confusion brought
about by headers being put in trailers.

However, given that we have talked about trailers for 20+ years
now, yet they have never gained any serious traction, the simplest
and most efficient way to end the confusion is to do away with
trailers, so that headers only live in headers, as originally
intended.

The problems trailers were invented to work around, are barely
relevant these days, and almost universally handled with JS on the
client.

We are not running out of headers, so trailers do not enjoy a
"insurance for the future" status like IPv6 did during its
twenty years of crossing of the desert.

KISS: Trailers must die.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2020 16:44:51 UTC