There's already a HTTP header registry, and it doesn't require any
particular format for the syntax specification;
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3864.txt
Cheers,
On 2007/02/17, at 5:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:40:36 +0100, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
inc.com> wrote:
There's informal, unofficial activity (disclaimer: I'm one of the
instigators) on the HTTP WG list to revise RFC2616, but the stated
intent is to get a WG and make it formal. See:
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/>
And that will also define a registration mechanism for HTTP headers
which requires the use of ABNF as opposed to EBNF?
Anyway, I'll have a look once the rest is settled...
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
