4 ms·
They've explicitly said they're looking at finding a way to still be able to express custom properties. So done right the end result will be basically no diffe
by mst 4y ago
They've explicitly said they're looking at finding a way to still be able to express custom properties.
So done right the end result will be basically no different from the use of X- headers in HTTP and friends.
What they're talking about doing could easily be -implemented- badly, but your reaction to the idea of doing it at all seems rather more exothermic than indicated by the situation.
- rektide 4y agoRFC 6648 deprecated the X- header prefix. It turned out to be ridiculously hand-wringing a concern & just makes a noisey prefix that still results in name clashes anyways. I wish they'd actually elaborated like a dozen cases in the wild, that show there's a real problem here & why they'd do this. I agree, Im having a strong reaction to this. It really seems like any workarounds that happens here are going to be ugly, going to be gross, and it feels like such a false need, such a non-issue to make new problems over. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6648 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6648