Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: HTTP header registration question

"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Fri, 28 September 2007 09:59 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-message-headers-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbCct-0006HC-Gs; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:59:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-message-headers by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbCcs-0006Gr-IV for ietf-message-headers-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:59:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbCcs-0006GX-8b for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:59:14 -0400
Received: from sam.opera.com ([213.236.208.81]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbCcl-00039N-TY for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:59:14 -0400
Received: from annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com (c5144430c.cable.wanadoo.nl [81.68.67.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by sam.opera.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l8S9wtCj005744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:58:56 GMT
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:58:54 +0200
To: ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: HTTP header registration question
From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software ASA
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <op.tza9zqen64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com> <fdhbc1$s2n$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <op.tzczcggc64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
In-Reply-To: <fdhbc1$s2n$1@sea.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.21 (Linux)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/4419/Fri Sep 28 07:36:28 2007 on sam.opera.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <ietf-message-headers.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-message-headers-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:37:35 +0200, Frank Ellermann  
<nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> three HTTP headers: Access-Control, If-Method-Allowed, and
>> Referer-Root (sic). Can I do that as attached or is it
>> preferable to have three separate templates?
>
> The given specification apparently only covers Access-Control
> in an "Editor Draft".  Do you plan to add the other two later
> in your draft ?

The other two are both mentioned and it's defined what they are to  
contain. (They are request headers.) Maybe they should have syntax  
definitions as well just to make it complete.


> BTW, your draft uses the ugly RFC 2616 "LWS" construct.
> Maybe check with the 2616bis folks what they intend to do
> with "LWS".  The 2616bis list is ietf-http-wg @ w3.org

Once they publish something new, the specification can be revised I  
suppose.


> (I like your text/xml flame, Olivier hit me with it on the
>  validator list ;-)

More recently I've become of the opinion that a much more pragmatic  
solution would be to simply treat text/xml identical to application/xml as  
all browsers already do.


(I'll use "provisional" by the way, thanks.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>


_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers