James M Snell wrote:
> 8.5 Slug: Header > > When posting a resource to a collection in order to add a new member, > a client MAY include a Slug request header. This constitutes a > request by the client that the URI assigned to the new resource > incorporate the string provided in the value of the Slug header. > Server implementations MAY attempt to comply with the request. The > syntax of this header MUST conform to the isegment-nz construct as > defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC3987]. The value MAY contain characters > from character sets other than [ISO88591] only when encoded according > to the rules of [RFC2047]. Although discussion on PaceSlugHeader recently seems to have died down (since, AFAIK, most people are quite happy with it), I would still like to add one more comment: While I do realize that the name "Slug" is quite entrenched in a publishing context, I still wonder whether a more neutral name like "Segment" would be better? IMHO, it is conceivable that other protocols might want to reuse the header, in which case a name like "Segment" is far more appropriate than "Slug". Any opinions? Regards, Andreas Sewe
