On 02/22/2016 07:00 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/21/2016 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 02/21/2016 12:50 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a
bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which
have meaning in the name of the
On 02/22/2016 07:00 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/21/2016 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 02/21/2016 12:50 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a
bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which
have meaning in the name of the
On 02/21/2016 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 12:50 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>
>> In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a
>> bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which
>> have meaning in the name of the header (rather than just the value).
On 02/21/2016 12:50 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a
bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which
have meaning in the name of the header (rather than just the value).
This proved to a bit confusing, so I was asked to
In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a
bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which
have meaning in the name of the header (rather than just the value).
This proved to a bit confusing, so I was asked to write it up. I
did:
