3 ms·
It's both. The "DNF" header can't be a serious proposal since it doesn't follow the convention of other HTTP headers. They're leaving "Do-Not-Fool" unused in
by brlewis 16y ago
It's both. The "DNF" header can't be a serious proposal since it doesn't follow the convention of other HTTP headers. They're leaving "Do-Not-Fool" unused in case it later becomes a serious proposal. But it does actually send the header, so in that sense it's legit.
Announcement for our DNF support: http://ourdoings.com/2011-04-01 http://ourdoings.com/2011-04-01
- sid0 16y ago> The "DNF" header can't be a serious proposal since it doesn't follow the convention of other HTTP headers. Why do you say that? The Do Not Track header (which is of course quite serious) is "DNT".
- brlewis 16y agoI hadn't looked at DNT. Are there other recent http header propsals that use acronyms? Maybe I'm just not keeping with the times.
- mbrubeck 16y agoThe rationale for "DNT" is to minimize the bandwidth/latency impact of adding a new header to every single HTTP request (for users who enable the "do not track" option). Update: The official announcement is ready - http://mozillalabs.com/blog/2011/04/protecting-users-from-an-age-old-threat/ http://mozillalabs.com/blog/2011/04/protecting-users-from-an...