4 ms·
I like seeing an attempt at cleaning up the X-abuse, but the recommendation of using standard-looking extensions so that if they ever leak into the standard spa
by rkalla 15y ago
I like seeing an attempt at cleaning up the X-abuse, but the recommendation of using standard-looking extensions so that if they ever leak into the standard space you aren't left with a "Standard" that is named "x-something-something" -- makes me wonder if you are CLEARLY writing application-specific extensions (e.g. "x-aws-ec2-hourly-rate") is it then OK (by the logic of the spec) to continue using X-?
I understand the motivation when working on something general that might eventually get formalized, but for app-locked params it still feels right to me to continue using X-.
- kalleboo 15y agoWell in your example there's really no point in having an "X-" there, "aws-" itself is kind of a vendor prefix, there's no chance of that ever conflicting with a real standard header. Adding "X-" would just be wasting bandwidth.
- rkalla 15y agoAhh, that's a good point, my example wasn't a great one. It seems an app-specific prefix is the way to go WRT my question.