- From: Morgan L <morganl.webkit@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:02:32 -0800 (PST)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
--- Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Morgan L wrote: > >In section 2 of > http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/, > >it says that setRequestHeader should reject the > >connection header. > > The purpose of these restrictions is to remind > implementers that the > user agent has to control certain headers for > protocol integrity or > other reasons, in other words, implementations > should not blindy pass > to the server whatever value a script might have set > there. > > It should be perfectly permissable if the > implementation instead of > ignoring the attempt at setting some value takes the > attempt under > advisement when making its own decisions what to set > the header to, > in other words, the browser might well list close > among the tokens > after a script tried to set the header. > > I agree the current text does not convery this very > well, do you have > a suggestion how to editorially improve it? We can't > simply "allow" > this particular case as simply sending "Connection: > close" can be wrong > in many cases (see e.g. RFC 2616, section 13.5.1). Ah, that make sense to me. I think the current text has caused major browser engines to "mistakenly" stop supporting connection: close. It is easy to blindly implement whatever the "standards" say :-) I think it would help if a caveat were added along the lines of what you have written here. I think the "connection: close" example should be used to demonstrate why it might be wise for a user-agent to customize what request headers it rejects. I'm not sure that section 13.5.2 implies that "connection: close" can be wrong. It is true that an XHR users cannot assume that the origin server will see the "connection: close" header, but it is still always the case that the UA would see it. And, in the example that I provided, the goal is to tell the UA that it does not need to count this request against the max-persistent-connections-per-host limit. At least, I can't see how allowing XHR users to specify "connection: close" can be regarded as harmful. Thoughts? --morgan ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 23:02:48 UTC