- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 07:39:26 +1000
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, at 06:36, Austin William Wright wrote: > 3. It allows for some future extensions (if you omit the > “Content-Range” field, you can use a different one to specify the > target range). When building for future extensions, consider whether you need a new extension point or whether an existing one is in fact better. In this case, if you have no current need for extensions, that might continue, in which case you might be better off defining a new media type for your future use case. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9170.html#name-version-negotiation and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9170.html#name-fewer-extension-points (shameless self-promotion).
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2022 21:39:58 UTC