httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject Re: patch 90g
Date Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:32:07 GMT
> Of course, this particular suggestion relies on the HTTP standardization
> effort to *not* adopt header names which conflict with whatever convention
> we finally choose, but for the moment, we're relying on that anyway; it
> just gives them a clear patch of namespace to avoid.  (Is this sensible?
> Roy?)

It is sensible, but I won't guarantee any sensible behavior in the HTTP WG.
HTTP/1.1 is now design-by-committee -- apparently the IETF is becoming
more like the ISO.

> (If not, one alternative might be to adopt a syntax for CGI-specific
> headers which is not legal RFC822 header syntax at all, perhaps by using
> header names with blanks in them --- I think that's illegal --- viz:
> 
>    Content-type: text/html
>    Set-cookie: items=grommet,1;frammis,3
>    CGI output buffer size: 50000
>    CGI log comment: {{Session XYZPDQ} {Action add} {Item frammis} {Qty 3}}
> 
> Of course deliberately adopting a syntax for new CGI headers which is
> not legal by RFC822 might well be considered an evil in and of itself,
> in some quarters... I'm just noting that it might be the lesser of two
> evils, if we can't eliminate the possibility of conflict any other way).

I prefer a CGI- prefix -- the suggestion above would lead to portability
problems.

......Roy

Mime
View raw message