Live data from Hacker News

"X-" deprecated for HTTP headers

tools.ietf.org

1–10 of 39 posts

Re: "X-" deprecated for HTTP headers

#5
post #2

Does anybody know what the recommended practice is?

It's not just about the prefix -- the goal is to get rid of the unstandardized parameter namespace entirely. New parameters should be named for permanence, so if they do become standard there's no need for migration.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-05.html

Re: "X-" deprecated for HTTP headers

#8
I was going to make a joke that "X-Subliminal" from http://tuxgames.com should become "com.tuxgames.subliminal", but I see they already made it for me...

> In some situations, segregating the parameter name space used in a given application protocol can be justified:

> 1. When it is extremely unlikely that some parameters will ever be standardized. In this case, implementation-specific and private- use parameters could at least incorporate the organization's name (e.g., "ExampleInc-foo" or, consistent with [RFC4288], "VND.ExampleInc.foo") or primary domain name (e.g., "com.example.foo" or a Uniform Resource Identifier [RFC3986] such as "http://example.com/foo). In rare cases, truly experimental parameters could be given meaningless names such as nonsense words, the output of a hash function, or Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) [RFC4122].

Re: "X-" deprecated for HTTP headers

#9
post #8

I was going to make a joke that "X-Subliminal" from http://tuxgames.com should become "com.tuxgames.subliminal", but I see they already made it for me... > In some situations, segregating the parameter name space used in a given application protocol can be justified: > 1. When it is extremely unlikely that some parameters will ever be standardized. In this case, implementation-specific and private- use parameters cou…

Could you explain the reference in your first paragraph?
Post reply on HN