#231 closed design (fixed)
Considerations for new header fields
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | mnot@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 17 |
Component: | non-specific | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by mnot@…)
We need to document what those who want to define new headers need to take into consideration. E.g.,
- i18n / charset
- reuse of common syntax
- whether it's required to be listed in the connection header (hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end)
Not sure if this should go in p1 or p2.
Attachments (1)
Change History (26)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Owner set to mnot@…
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 12
comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 12 to 13
comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
Note somewhere that 'close' is reserved ( see #256 ).
comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…
From [1158]:
Replaced the general prohibition on unrecognized Content-* header fields with a specific prohibition of Content-Range (the only field for which it is an actual problem) and a general requirement regarding checking for consistency. Unfortunately, this required rewriting the entire section on PUT to get rid of the misconceptions about storing resources and reflect how PUT is actually implemented in practice.
comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from 13 to 14
comment:9 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:10 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 14 to 15
comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from 15 to unassigned
Unassigning milestone; please don't set a milestone on a design ticket until we have WG consensus, or it's incorporated.
comment:12 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:13 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:14 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…
What else needs to be done to close this?
comment:15 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:16 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:17 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:18 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:19 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:20 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
See also [1463].
comment:21 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:22 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 17
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:23 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:24 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
comment:25 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Summary changed from Considerations for new headers to Considerations for new header fields
When using common syntax like "param", how to handle repetitions. (1) Are they allowed? (2) What are the processing requirements?