headers
eduardo.casais | 26 Jan 2009 15:11

[W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / request for advice

I am writing on behalf of the W3C Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group
(W3C 
BPWG). 

1) CONTEXT. 

The W3C BPWG is currently elaborating guidelines for content transformation 
proxies, i.e. proxies that modify HTTP requests sent by terminals and
responses returned by application servers; the paramount case is
transforming WWW sites 
intended for desktops in a format suitable for mobile devices, notably
mobile 
phones. 

Some of these proxies utilize additional X- prefixed header fields. The W3C
is 
considering formalizing best practices for this technology, introducing
normal 
(i.e. non X- prefixed) header fields, and registering them at IANA. Details 
about these extra fields are given in the appendix below. 

2) ISSUE. 

There are already commercial systems in production use that send these X- 
prefixed header fields, and that cannot be updated to use the new header
fields 
in a "big-bang" upgrade. Hence, we realize there might be a migration period

where both X- prefixed and non-prefixed fields coexist.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
SM | 27 Jan 2009 23:40

Re: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / request for advice

At 06:11 26-01-2009, eduardo.casais <at> areppim.com wrote:
>3) QUESTIONS.
>
>We would be grateful to get advice from the IETF with respect to handling
>the
>coexistence of X- and non-X- prefixed fields, and the phasing out of
>deprecated
>fields.
>
>3.a: What is the IETF policy regarding the registration of X- prefixed
>fields?

The following is personal opinion and not advice about IETF policy 
.  Refer to BCP 90 for the registration procedures.

>3.b: What is the IETF policy regarding the promotion of X- prefixed header
>fields (registered or not) to non-X-prefixed, standard registered ones?

X- prefixed header fields are generally not registered.  For the 
example you mentioned, the header field was registered with 
"depreciated" as the status.

>3.c: What is the IETF policy regarding the simultaneous deployment and
>utilization of two sets of header fields, which have the same semantics, one
>
>comprising X- prefixed and the other equivalent non-prefixed fields?

You can depreciate the existing one in favor of the one defined in your RFC.

>3.d: What is the IETF policy regarding the deprecation and discontinuance of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane