- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:45:46 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
One reply - which doesn't appear in the archives of the IETF mailing-list as of now but should appear in a short amount of time as a reply to my original email I suppose - suggests that we provisionally register both the X-Device-foo *and* the Device-foo header fields. The reply goes on to suggest that we then transition away from the X-Device-foo on our way to REC which is not what the working group wants from previous discussions on the topic. That said, if the X-Device-foo header field is provisionally registered, I doubt the Device-foo header field would be available for registration by anyone else anyway. How about we provisionally register both the header fields with and without the "X-" prefix? I support the idea (as much as I support the registration of the X-Device-foo header fields in general, that is), and do not object sticking to the X-Device- format only. Dan, Jo, could you add the question to next Tuesday's agenda for resolution? Francois. Francois Daoust wrote: > Hi guys, > > FYI, I officially requested the provisional registration of the > X-Device-* HTTP header. See email on the dedicated IETF mailing-list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-message-headers/current/msg00098.html > > > This is the first step of a two-step process. Depending on the comments > received in the next few weeks, I may then be able to have them included > in the IANA provisional message header field registry at: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html > > Francois. > >
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 15:47:31 UTC