Re: Re: HTTP header registration question

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:37:35 +0200, Frank Ellermann  
<nobody <at> 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  <at>  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/>