Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:28 AM Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 24.02.2020 00:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > ...
> >> That said, the title probably should also change from "Structured
> >> Headers for HTTP" to something like "Structured Field Values for HTTP
> >> Headers and Trailers".
> >
> > I'm not against that, although it's quite wordy. Anyone else have
> thoughts?
>
> Or just "Structured Field Values for HTTP".
>

For what it's worth, I think this title would make it hard to find for
people who aren't experts in HTTP. We think of these things as headers, so
that ought to be in the title and the common name. "Structured HTTP Header
and Trailer Field Values"? I do think the original title is defensible:

*
https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#header.fields
says
that "header fields" are colloquially known as just "headers", so no need
for the "field".

* Very few people use trailers, and those who do are used to looking for
"header" documentation, so no need to mention them in the title.

* The boundary between the field name and value was already structured
before this I-D, so by adding structure to the values, this document
achieves structured fields.

Jeffrey