- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:25:00 -0500
- To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
On 01/08/2012, at 1:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: > Concern #2: Generalizing from my first concern, I think we've seen a > move away from building semantics into names. RFC 6648, which deprecated > the "x-" prefix in application protocol parameters, is one example of > that direction. IMHO conventions like the special "Security-" prefix in > HTTP header names are a bad practice, and the "web+" prefix in URI > schemes follows the same path. As far as I can see, there's no strong > justification for hardcoding here, and if folks think there is such a > justification then it would be good to explain it in the HTML > specification or elsewhere. This is my primary concern. AFAICT this is being done primarily to avoid having an updating mechanism in the browser (which is increasingly common anyway) and perhaps a registry (or a modification to the existing one). Is there another motivation for this? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 21:25:27 UTC