Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Content HTTP Headers module

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 5:49:00 AM6/20/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, module-o...@mozilla.org
This is a proposal for a new Core module:

Name: Content HTTP Headers
Description: HTTP headers related to content, e.g. User-Agent,
Content-Type, Accept. (Transport-related headers are the
responsibility of the Necko module owner.)
Owner: Gervase Markham
Peer(s):
Source Dir(s): None
Bugzilla Component(s): Core/Networking: HTTP
URL: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_user_agent_string_reference
Discussion Group: mozilla.dev.platform


Discussion around the User Agent string, particularly, requires
balancing of a large number of perspectives from across the organization
- compatibility, developer relations, standards compliance, privacy -
and so does not easily fall into the remit of any one existing module.
It would be useful to officially allocate decision-making ability in
this area.

Gerv

Johnathan Nightingale

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 10:04:40 AM6/20/12
to Gervase Markham, module-o...@mozilla.org, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
With no offense intended to you, Gerv, I think this one needs explicit weigh in from the module owners and drivers of our network, mobile and b2g code since they have all been recently involved in lively discussions on the subject. "Silence implies assent" could serve us poorly here, and set that module up for immediate conflict if it comes into being without their support.

Given the contention and need for clarity here, I'd also really like to see some peers to this module. I don't envy you the task of finding them, though. This module's owner and peers need a very careful balance of poetry and pragmatism.

J

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Sr. Director of Firefox Engineering
@johnath

Brendan Eich

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 11:35:24 AM6/20/12
to Johnathan Nightingale, module-o...@mozilla.org, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Gervase Markham
This was based on input from Necko folks, in particular Patrick McManus
suggested the split based on Content Headers vs. lower-level
HTTP/Transfer Headers.

/be

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Jun 21, 2012, 2:16:56 AM6/21/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, module-o...@mozilla.org
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> Name:          Content HTTP Headers
> Description:   HTTP headers related to content, e.g. User-Agent,
>               Content-Type, Accept. (Transport-related headers are the
>               responsibility of the Necko module owner.)
> Owner:         Gervase Markham

I think creating this module with this ownership would be a good idea.
Many people want to add their stuff to the HTTP headers. We need
someone as a gatekeeper who has been around for long enough to have
seen past additions become dead weight. Gerv is the natural fit, since
he is already the Guardian of the Accept Header.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jun 22, 2012, 5:44:19 AM6/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 20/06/12 15:04, Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
> With no offense intended to you, Gerv, I think this one needs
> explicit weigh in from the module owners and drivers of our network,
> mobile and b2g code since they have all been recently involved in
> lively discussions on the subject. "Silence implies assent" could
> serve us poorly here, and set that module up for immediate conflict
> if it comes into being without their support.

Sure.

> Given the contention and need for clarity here, I'd also really like
> to see some peers to this module. I don't envy you the task of
> finding them, though. This module's owner and peers need a very
> careful balance of poetry and pragmatism.

I am open to suggestions. :-)

Gerv

Jason Duell

unread,
Jun 25, 2012, 2:47:19 PM6/25/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org, Christian Biesinger
On 06/22/2012 02:44 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 20/06/12 15:04, Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
>> With no offense intended to you, Gerv, I think this one needs
>> explicit weigh in from the module owners and drivers of our network,
>> mobile and b2g code since they have all been recently involved in
>> lively discussions on the subject. "Silence implies assent" could
>> serve us poorly here, and set that module up for immediate conflict
>> if it comes into being without their support.

I'd be delighted as a necko peer to never have to referee a UserAgent
string change discussion :)

Jason




> Sure.
>
>> Given the contention and need for clarity here, I'd also really like
>> to see some peers to this module. I don't envy you the task of
>> finding them, though. This module's owner and peers need a very
>> careful balance of poetry and pragmatism.
> I am open to suggestions. :-)
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance


0 new messages