- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:14:20 +0200
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- CC: W3C MWBP WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Jo Rabin wrote: > I think we are between the devil and the deep blue sea on this. > > If we say that you can't extend it then aren't we contradicting RFC 2616 > which says you can? You can't extend it if you're not doing it right, i.e. if you do not register the additional replacement HTTP header fields, can you? I think that is what we should say. The group registered the replacement HTTP header fields it needed for the guidelines. Additional registrations may be considered by third parties and we should indeed not forbid anyone from extending the mapping table as needed. Equally, we should not imply that you can extend it without having the extension reviewed by the community, i.e. without going through some Internet draft. Francois. > If we don't say you can't, then it's open to interpretation and that is > probably the best we can do. I think we resolved this on some call or > other but maybe we should re-resolve it? > > Jo > > On 22/09/2009 11:33, Francois Daoust wrote: >> Jo Rabin wrote: >> [...] >>> 2) ACTION-928 >>> >>> Registration of X-Device Headers >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928 >>> >>> The reviewer's comments ref section 4.1.5.5 spelling out the headers >>> is addressed in a previous editor's draft. >>> >> >> I think part of the comment [1] might bounce back: >> [[ as written, an implementer might conceivably feel free to add >> additional headers that have not been registered. ]] >> >> While section 4.1.5.5 now includes the mapping table, it does leave >> open the possibility to add additional headers that have not been >> registered. >> >> Francois. >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Aug/0028.html >> >> >> >> [...] >
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 12:14:56 UTC