- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:35:45 -0800
- To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <mbaker@planetfred.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
I don't think that a "registry" of HTTP headers is appropriate, Rather, additional HTTP headers should be documented in IETF standards-track documents, if they are to be considered extensions to the HTTP protocol defined by the IETF. It is useful to have an index of headers for implementers to know where various headers are defined (as, say, an update to RFC 2076), but such an index is not a registry. The HTTP protocol specification RFC 2616 does create IANA registries (for content-coding and transfer-coding value tokens) and makes reference to several others (for charset, media type, and language tags). That there is no registry for other protocol elements (headers and error codes) is not an accident. So I discourage you from trying to create a HTTP header registry so that you could add "SOAPAction" to it. Larry (as former HTTP WG chair) -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 17:40:18 UTC