[Top] [All Lists]

Re: X-* header fields

2004-01-06 06:13:21

But *why* would an implementation care about the publication
guidelines for the field? That's the *only* thing "X-" tells you.

because any field that doesn't have a published definition probably
isn't something that should be implemented on a widespread basis -
since without a definition you have no reason to expect it to work
predictably from one implementation to another.

admittedly, this inference might be a bit subtle.  I see no harm in
making it more explicit.

It's not so much subtle as it is false.


X-Face: - there's every expectation of this interoperating just fine.

Note that I said "probably". The fact that there are a small number of counterexamples doesn't make it false. Yes, it can be made to interoperate on any platform, but if we were to standardize a field for the author's face, we might or might not choose this particular field name, image format, and encoding.

Now IMHO, the use of X- in X-Face shouldn't prevent us from documenting X-Face in an RFC, nor even from making it a standard - but only if we really had consensus to choose that name and format.