Re: 305/306 response codes

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Fisher Mark: "RE: Digest Authentication bleat"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 305/306 response codes"

[Roy:]
>> >In general:  "header" and "headers" are synonyms for the entire message
>> >header (as opposed to the body), whereas 'Set-proxy' is a "header field",
>> >or just "field".  I see the same confusion of terms in just about every
>> >proposal to change HTTP, but it would be nice to stay consistent with
>> >what I wrote for HTTP (based on what Ned wrote for MIME).

[Koen:]
>> When I started writing the TCN specs, I decided to ignore the `header
>> field' usage in HTTP/1.1.  I think `header', like we use it on the
>> list, is both nicer and less confusing.

[Larry:]
>I don't think you should do this and ask you to change TCN to be
>consistent with HTTP/1.1 and MIME documents.

2068 is not consistent itself: in most of the caching related text, it
uses just `header', not `header field'.

2069 and 2109 use plain `header', as do the mailing list archives.

So I plan to stick to `header' for now, because I think it is more
common usage in HTTP.  I'll add some words to the TCN terminology
section to eliminate any confusion for MIME people.

I think this whole issue is an editorial one, and I would like to hear
Jim's comments on the subject.  We can discuss a common editorial
strategy in Munich.  I am not violently opposed to `header field', but
I think that the best route to consistency is to switch to plain
`header' in the next revision of 2068.

Koen.

• Previous message: Fisher Mark: "RE: Digest Authentication bleat"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 305/306 response codes"