- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
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 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20070618/#content-access-control > > 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|..] / Content-[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? Cheers, -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 21:07:30 UTC