From fd@w3.org Thu Jul 9 03:06:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D03D3A6A69 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4XVgfS4duSue for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lewis.sophia.w3.org (gw.sophia.w3.org [193.51.208.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE5F3A6940 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from doust-w3claptop.sophia.w3.org ([10.1.2.97]) by lewis.sophia.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MOqWM-0002Ls-TE for ietf-message-headers@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:06:30 +0000 Message-ID: <4A55C127.8030609@w3.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:06:31 +0200 From: Francois Daoust User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] Provisional registration of 5 X-Device-* HTTP Header fields for use in content transformation guidelines X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:06:17 -0000 Hi, Please find below the registration template for 5 HTTP header fields the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group would like to provisionally register for use in the "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies" specification it is currently working on. Note on the presence of the "X-" prefix: names were chosen on the basis that there are a already existing and deployed convention. Since there is no easy way to transition out of a situation where an "X-" prefix has been used for other purpose than a purely experimental one, the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group acknowledges that these HTTP header field names are already in use and requests that the "X-" prefix be (exceptionally) kept. ----- Header field names: X-Device-User-Agent (request header) X-Device-Accept (request header) X-Device-Accept-Charset (request header) X-Device-Accept-Encoding (request header) X-Device-Accept-Language (request header) Applicable protocol: http Status: provisional Author/Change controller: W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/ Specification document(s): http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/latest (Editor's Draft) http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ (Working Draft) See section "4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields" in the documents. ----- I will submit the above template to the designated IANA e-mail address beginning of August, unless some explicit disagreement is made on this list. Regards, On behalf of the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group, Francois Daoust, W3C Staff Contact for the group. From fd@w3.org Fri Jul 10 08:34:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF233A6E57 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1C2OmJka7R3 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lewis.sophia.w3.org (gw.sophia.w3.org [193.51.208.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D0E28C339 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from doust-w3claptop.sophia.w3.org ([10.1.2.97]) by lewis.sophia.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MPI7Q-0004rg-EY; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:34:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4A575F8C.7070907@w3.org> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:34:36 +0200 From: Francois Daoust User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <4A55C127.8030609@w3.org> <4A572B0A.5020104@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <4A572B0A.5020104@ninebynine.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Provisional registration of 5 X-Device-* HTTP Header fields for use in content transformation guidelines X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:34:52 -0000 Hi Graham, The situation the Mobile Web Best Practices working group is trying to address is one where different vendors used different HTTP header field conventions (all starting with 'X-') for the same use in their proxies, requiring content providers to support the different names when they wanted to do things properly. What the working group would like to do is to shrink the list of existing conventions to one and only one convention, but would prefer not to introduce any new convention (be it the last one) for that to happen. The 'X-Device-foo' format is the most commonly used format in the list based on the group's experience, and thus the chosen one. That said, I have nothing against provisional registration of both forms. I add the topic to the working group's agenda for discussion. I suppose that, in any case, if we register the 'X-Device-User-Agent' header field, the 'Device-User-Agent' header field de facto would become "unavailable", not to trigger any confusion. Francois. Graham Klyne wrote: > Concerning the use of X- headers. > > A similar situation existed with the X-Archived-At header field [1]. > When that proposal went to standard/recommendation, the 'X-' was dropped > for the permanent registration [2], but the 'X-' version was retained in > the provisional registry [3], marked as 'Deprecated'. > > Assuming that you intend your specification to proceed to REC, I would > suggest a similar approach here. In which case, you may wish to > consider provisional registration of both forms. > > (The provisional header registry was intended, in part, to address > unsatisfactory aspects of the 'X-' naming convention illustrated by > cases like this.) > > [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt > [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html > [3] http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html > > #g > -- > > > Francois Daoust wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find below the registration template for 5 HTTP header fields >> the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group would like to >> provisionally register for use in the "Guidelines for Web Content >> Transformation Proxies" specification it is currently working on. >> >> Note on the presence of the "X-" prefix: names were chosen on the >> basis that there are a already existing and deployed convention. Since >> there is no easy way to transition out of a situation where an "X-" >> prefix has been used for other purpose than a purely experimental one, >> the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group acknowledges that >> these HTTP header field names are already in use and requests that the >> "X-" prefix be (exceptionally) kept. >> >> >> ----- >> Header field names: >> X-Device-User-Agent (request header) >> X-Device-Accept (request header) >> X-Device-Accept-Charset (request header) >> X-Device-Accept-Encoding (request header) >> X-Device-Accept-Language (request header) >> >> Applicable protocol: >> http >> >> Status: >> provisional >> >> Author/Change controller: >> W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/ >> >> Specification document(s): >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/latest >> >> (Editor's Draft) >> http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ (Working Draft) >> >> See section "4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields" in the documents. >> ----- >> >> >> I will submit the above template to the designated IANA e-mail address >> beginning of August, unless some explicit disagreement is made on this >> list. >> >> Regards, >> >> On behalf of the W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group, >> Francois Daoust, >> W3C Staff Contact for the group. >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf-message-headers mailing list >> Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers >> > From sm@resistor.net Fri Jul 10 09:16:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-message-headers@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D652E3A6C82 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQ2m3gcof2V4 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B948D3A6E63 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Alpha0/8.14.4.Alpha0) with ESMTP id n6AGGEDV007420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:16:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1247242584; x=1247328984; bh=3d+0u0POMquEACAuVqFz98BdozbTC5ZYui2kxSdH/lA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Z0zl2pCQI7UB/ka8epf7CIJZV0xaMoUV0BZuxqy9pat1MLat4HIgEeD5OTYXyQdqH 5wmDNou5iwP2LaC3lK1pPCQekWHE++QzzgYFn5flUmlUyYYfic+in4+L66KnTHcWEE Rg3V7jsleFaIN3xXsr2XW359F0v9YV0e7bGZj0yg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=QE6POS4pzoeJrBKJlnjI5xqU8RjbXL7/SgOpsAgH+KXM75FS7y/7Qt6bLw+anN0XS YsaKJHctshklg3Ewj3o2yUvgV//NIH81mi2VSPwz3bUt+Vqx+uaDlUF/cCKxfBFBhBa ZRhSpsdDG3M+/gA8wZ5xI21eb8saAthss+d7ZJk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090710090140.02a0f0c8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:15:59 -0700 To: Francois Daoust From: SM In-Reply-To: <4A575F8C.7070907@w3.org> References: <4A55C127.8030609@w3.org> <4A572B0A.5020104@ninebynine.org> <4A575F8C.7070907@w3.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Graham Klyne , ietf-message-headers@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Provisional registration of 5 X-Device-* HTTP Header fields for use in content transformation guidelines X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:16:01 -0000 Hi Francois, At 08:34 10-07-2009, Francois Daoust wrote: >The situation the Mobile Web Best Practices working group is trying >to address is one where different vendors used different HTTP header >field conventions (all starting with 'X-') for the same use in their >proxies, requiring content providers to support the different names >when they wanted to do things properly. What the working group would >like to do is to shrink the list of existing conventions to one and >only one convention, but would prefer not to introduce any new >convention (be it the last one) for that to happen. The >'X-Device-foo' format is the most commonly used format in the list >based on the group's experience, and thus the chosen one. I'll encourage you to adopt Graham's suggestion of moving to "Device-foo" or any other valid name that does not start with "X-". These "X-" headers are generally for private use where the interpretation is by private agreement. There are people outside the group that might use that header field for other purposes and they are unlikely to look it up in the registry. If your working group already agrees on having one convention, it is better to do away with the "X-". >That said, I have nothing against provisional registration of both >forms. I add the topic to the working group's agenda for discussion. >I suppose that, in any case, if we register the >'X-Device-User-Agent' header field, the 'Device-User-Agent' header >field de facto would become "unavailable", not to trigger any confusion. You'll have to register that header field as well. Regards, -sm