This document:Public document·Annotated document·View comments·Search comments·Add a new comment·Send replies to comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group
Other specs in this tool
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2377
There are 2 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
I don't really have any comments on 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. They seem fine, apart
from these nits:
1. The reference to XMLHttpRequest is out of date (the draft also had a
small name change).
2. XMLHttpRequest is not consistently marked up in the draft. I suggest
you simply use it as a name and not use <code> (unless you actually
reference the object and not the concept).
3. The time it is present in code XML is not completely in uppercase. That
Section 126.96.36.199 states the following:
"When forwarding an HTTP request with altered HTTP header fields, in addition
to complying with the rules of normal HTTP operation, proxies must include in
the request additional fields of the form "X-Device-"<original header name>
whose values are verbatim copies of the corresponding unaltered header field
values, so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values."
The intent of the statement is that the specific way of naming the backup fields
and the fact that their values are the original, unaltered ones sent by the device
are, together, the indispensable elements serving to restore the original HTTP
The construction of the sentence should fully reflect this intent. I suggest
modifying it thus:
"[...], so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header fields."
This makes it clear that the conventions adopted enable servers to reconstruct
the entire HTTP header fields (names and values), not just their values.
Add a comment.