On 3/6/12 4:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hey Peter, Howdy. :)
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Peter Saint-Andre >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:32 PM >> To: Randall Gellens >> Cc: Mark Nottingham; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating >> Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current >> Practice >> >> However, note the existence of things like the "x-gzip" and "gzip" >> content codings in HTTP, which RFC 2068 says are equivalent. An >> implementation that programmatically discriminated between "standard" >> and "non-standard" parameters based solely on the parameter names might >> automatically reject entities for which a content-coding of "x-gzip" is >> specified, but automatically accept entities for which a content-coding >> of "gzip" is specified. IMHO that's just wrong, and MUST NOT is >> appropriate. > > So should this document note that it "Updates 2068"? I don't think so, because "x-gzip" and "gzip" were in fact equivalent (as far as I can see), so treating them as equivalent seems just fine. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
