semantics: confusing title "Designing New Header Field Values"

[reschke]

The title may be technical correct (because it's about the field value syntax), but I believe people looking for this might trip over this.

Proposal: "Designing New Header Fields"

[annevk]

Perhaps instead of two separate sections for new header field names and one for header field values they should be grouped as they were before?

The reader is probably looking for the advice on X- and how to define a value at the same time.

[reschke]

Ah. I believe we currently do not have any advice on header field names, but maybe we should.

[wtarreau]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:12:36AM -0700, Julian Reschke wrote: Ah. I believe we currently do not have any advice on header field *names*, but maybe we should.

+1

[mcmanus]

see also #30

[annevk]

@reschke I was looking at https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html and I see "Considerations for New Header Fields" which has some advice around X- at least (and is a subsection of "Header Field Names") and "Designing New Header Field Values" which we are discussing here, which is a subset of "Header Field Values". It would make sense to me to group these as a new subsection of "Message Abstraction" dealing with "New Header Fields".

[reschke]

Good catch. So this needs reorg in any case.

[royfielding]

Yes, the initial edits that put these sections together were limited to preserve the diffs since the reorganized RFC text (to ensure we didn't lose information). I plan to do a more extensive rewrite soon to consolidate sections, make the text more readable, introduce the combined field terms, and remove 1.1 syntax-specific bits from semantics.

[mnot]

+1, will take a stab at this.

[mnot]

Waiting for #47 resolution.

[mnot]

Consolidated those two sections. There are other things to be done (e.g., the misleading "header" nature of the title, other rewrites), but those are other issues (existing or to be raised).