- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:17:11 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, comments@daringfireball.net
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> ... >>> In Ogg and Annodex we have used a HTTP parameter called >>> X-Content-Duration to communicate the duration of a video to a user >>> agent. It may be an idea to introduce / implement this more widely for >>> any content type, since typically it is not much of a problem for a >>> server extension to calculate the duration of a video, but the user >>> agent has to do all sorts of acrobatics to find out such. There is >>> just the issue of creating server extensions... >>> ... >> *Please* do not introduce "X-*" headers. "X-" doesn't have any special >> meaning in message headers; see >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.1> for details on registration >> procedures. > > X-Content-Duration is used to test out such a header before putting it > forward for registration. If ppl are happy to use such a header > everywhere, it indeed needs to be registered properly. But experience shows this doesn't work. Once a header gets implemented independently, it's hard to rename it. That's why RFC 3864 defined a "provisional" registry. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 13:17:46 UTC