Re: long HTTP header field name in WD-access-control

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Yves,
> We're discussing this "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources"
> spec in a TAG telcon, and I discovered...
> 2.1. Content-Access-Control header
> Now as I recall, modern HTTP header fields are moving
> from Transfer-Encoding: to TE: to save packets.
> Can you confirm?

There is another reason to use TE: avoiding mixing the connection-level 
TE/Transfer-Encoding "couple" with the Accept-[Encoding|..] / 

That said, if you manage to have a shorter version of a long header while 
keeping the name obvious, it will be faster to parse. In the WD cited 
above, I would drop the 'Content'.

On a side note, I'm wondering why the WD states that the policy described 
is only safe for GET and HEAD... no OPTIONS?

Baroula que barouleras, au tiťu toujou t'entourneras.


Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 21:07:30 UTC