We have been there already: lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0001.html I thought we had already decided not to define and register yet another set of HTTP fields because nobody (developers, vendors of proxies, operators) is asking for them, and their introduction raises serious problems -- for doubtful benefits. Registering header fields and then explicitly stating in the CTG that they must not be used or deployed is a possibility, but then how does one justify registering fields whose utilization is prohibited in the corresponding standard? This is highly questionable -- especially from the viewpoint that this is a technique to squatter the name space of HTTP and hinders other organizations that might have legimitate claims to rely upon that name space for their own standardization activities. E.CasaisReceived on Friday, 10 July 2009 19:34:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC