- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:15:46 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> feedback on "Define how to register new http-equiv values. (credit: ma) >> (whatwg r2548)": >> >> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#other-pragma-directives>: >> >> "...Such extensions must use a name that is identical to a >> previously-registered HTTP header defined in an RFC, and must have >> behavior identical to that described for the HTTP header...." >> >> HTTP headers do not need to be defined in RFCs, there's a registry for >> it. See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4229>, >> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html>, and >> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html>. > > Right; the idea is to reduce the number of headers that are used here, by > having a higher barrier to entry than just registration. (It's a bit like > "RFC required" from RFC5226.) That barrier is not particularly high, unless you require standards-track RFCs. I really don't see the point defining something else than the IETF does for this purpose. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 08:16:32 UTC