2006/7/6, Julian Reschke:
James M Snell schrieb: > the client that the URI assigned to the new resource incorporate the > string provided in the value of the Slug header. Server implementations > MAY attempt to comply with the request. The syntax of this header MUST Again. What's the "MAY" for here? If it's truly optional, no RFC2119 terminology is needed, as the default for unknown headers is to be ignored anyway.
It could be useful however to make clearer that Slug is a request-header field, so that APP servers (compying to the spec) don't consider it an entity-header field (and don't store it along with the entity, which is a SHOULD in RFC2616). There's a difference between ignoring the header field and discarding it (therefore ignoring its value).
From a practical point of view, it seems to me that things would be *much* simpler if we'd specify that the value is an URI (not IRI) segment, because that would take away the whole dependency on RFC2047.
+1 If you want characters from non-ASCII charsets, %-encode them.
> Slug: a-picture-of-my-house I think it would be good if the example indeed would use characters not in ISO8859.
Slug: Les_Fran%C3%A7ais_ont_gagn%C3%A9_hier_soir ;-) -- Thomas Broyer
