And (Re) Posting Mark's response from April 25th, for the same reasons. > On 24 Apr 2015, at 2:32 pm, Ilya Grigorik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is the Internet-Draft for this planned to become a standards-track RFC? Is there an IETF Working Group that has adopted it? > Yes, and as part of the HTTP WG. /cc mnot
To be clear, it hasn't been adopted yet, but we have discussed it, and I suspect we will at some point in the not-too-distant future. >> On the spec contents: I’m wary of the fact that the header names are very opaque. That’s not in the HTTP tradition, where header names are generally human-readable. I am skeptical that the HTTP WG would be satisfied with these header names as-is. > I believe the intent with the short names was to minimize impact on the network, since the headers will be sent with every sub-resource requests once the server has opted-in. With that said, you're not the first to make that comment, so I'm open to modify that, especially since HTTP/2 makes this consideration irrelevant. Regarding the concern about the WG feeling — actually, there's a strong preference for shorter names, as long as it really is something that's going to be on the wire a lot. Roy in particular gets grouchy at long names. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
