3 ms·

What is wrong with custom http headers? Like these from Cloudfront: X-Ua-Compatible: IE=Edge,chrome=1 X-Request-Id: 19c0a05fd28e371127a76f658203eace X-Runtim

• jjguy 14y ago
  Appendix B: The primary problem with the "X-" convention is that unstandardized parameters have a tendency to leak into the protected space of standardized parameters, thus introducing the need for migration from the "X-" name to a standardized name. Migration, in turn, introduces interoperability issues (and sometimes security issues) because older implementations will support only the "X-" name and newer implementations might support only the standardized name. To preserve interoperability, newer implementations simply support the "X-" name forever, which means that the unstandardized name has become a de facto standard (thus obviating the need for segregation of the name space into standardized and unstandardized areas in the first place). Most of your examples are covered under the "exception 1" clause, also in Appendix B: 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... 2. When parameter names might have significant meaning... 3. When parameter names need to be very short (e.g., as in [RFC5646] for language tags)...
• asdfaoeu 14y ago
  They aren't complaining about custom http headers it's just the practise of using "X-" on front of the names.