Re: long HTTP header field name in WD-access-control

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:39:04 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>  
wrote:
> My .02; I'm not too worried about saving bytes (at least on this scale),  
> but I do wonder if that "Content" prefix is justified...

Hmm, I can find me suggesting the name Content-Access-Control as far back  
as 200605 but I'm pretty sure someone else suggested it to me first. I'm  
thinking it was Mark Baker, but I can't find the relevant minutes/e-mail.

(Personally I'd be fine with naming it Access-Control.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 13:22:26 UTC