- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:22:48 +0100
- To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi, Johannes Koch wrote: > > 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. This is "meta information", like the TCP stuff in the connection class. It's not information that has been exchanged by the client and server. >>>> 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. So here is a proposal for the convention: - "The literal value of the properties will be the string string sent by the client or the server. In other words, capitalization and white space will be retained as-is." Any thoughts? >>>> 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 :-) 1 down, 2 more to go... ;) Best, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:22:53 UTC