- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 18:34:43 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 02/06/2026 15:10, Nidhi Jaju wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Tommy that renaming params/except to include/exclude is an > editorial change. The parsing and processing logic is unchanged, so what > we're discussing is which strings sit on the wire. > > Each of the proposals has pros and cons. include/exclude reads more > naturally on its own, but as noted, "exclude" inside a field called "No- > Vary" is confusing depending on how you parse the field name, since the > things that are excluded are the ones that don't vary. Cache-Query- > Params came up as an option to replace No-Vary-Search, but it's not > clear that there's a significant enough win to justify a rename at this > point. Developer A to B: Remember do not not exclude the items being included with No-* "exclude". A public document needs to encourage clear and simple descriptions easy to communicate across language barriers and skill levels. Double-negatives are very bad descriptors. FTR: I am against the "No-" prefix to avoid confusion and bad interpretations. The rest is bikeshedding. HTH Amos
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2026 06:34:51 UTC