On 5/7/13 2:04 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 5/7/13 11:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > Don't these headers and shim have different semantic meaning, though? > > Not that I can see. Care to elaborate? > > > SHIM is used to specify RFC 822 style freeform metadata on a message (or > presence, though I've never seen that) stanza, using registered header > field names, some drawn from a number of protocols, some specific to XMPP. > > This is being used to encapsulate HTTP header fields, which (by > definition) have names which may not be registered and semantics defined > purely within RFC 2616, and transported inside an iq stanza. > > Same syntax, but different semantic. > > I'm not feeling hugely strong in either direction, but in general I'm > leaning toward the notion that these are not headers [sic] in the sense > of XEP-0131.
I disagree. XEP-0131 explicitly references RFCs 2045, 2616, 2617, 2822 (needs to be updated to 5322), and 3261. That covers MIME, HTTP, email, and SIP. And the SHIM registry includes headers from most or all of those specs (and a few others). So SHIM is very much not limited to RFC 822. Peter
