My .02; I'm not too worried about saving bytes (at least on this
scale), but I do wonder if that "Content" prefix is justified...
On 2007/07/03, at 7:07 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
Yves,
We're discussing this "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources"
spec in a TAG telcon, and I discovered...
2.1. Content-Access-Control header
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20070618/#content-
access-control
Now as I recall, modern HTTP header fields are moving
from Transfer-Encoding: to TE: to save packets.
Can you confirm?
There is another reason to use TE: avoiding mixing the connection-
level TE/Transfer-Encoding "couple" with the Accept-[Encoding|..] /
Content-[Encoding|..]
That said, if you manage to have a shorter version of a long header
while keeping the name obvious, it will be faster to parse. In the
WD cited above, I would drop the 'Content'.
On a side note, I'm wondering why the WD states that the policy
described is only safe for GET and HEAD... no OPTIONS?
Cheers,
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
