- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:53:20 +0100
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > > Johannes Koch wrote: >>> 2. timestamp requests and responses >>> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy >>> and useful to add dc:date properties to the response/request classes. >> >> Everyone who needs it can add dc:date properties to request/response. >> There's no need for us to allow/disallow it. > > We are recording an exchange, timestamping the interaction seem to be in > the scope of this effort. Do you feel strongly about this? Hmm, in HTTP 1.1, section 13.2.3 <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.2.3> there are several time values. >>> 5. normalisation of header field values >>> -> need to define some form of convention, even if no transformation is >>> done we need to say that somewhere. What convention do we want to use? > > Any thoughts on this? How do we treat whitespace and caps? I'm not sure, but I think this depends on the header. Some may be case-sensitive while others are not. >>> 5.a. literal representation of the unprocessed headers >>> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy >>> to add an "http:transcript" property to store the original header text. >> >> I don't think we need a literal representation of the unprocessed >> headers, if the processed representation of the headers is equivalent >> to the unprocessed stuff. > > Equivalent is in the eye of the beholder. I *may* be interested that my > server send "aCCept-language" instead of "Accept-language". It would be > optional anyway... Although both header names _are_ equivalent in HTTP terms, there may be a usecase :-) -- Johannes Koch BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 22:53:48 UTC