Re: one for the wish list

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>]

> You would need a convention for the URL which returns this information.
> Strictly, this response would break the HTTP/1.0 spec, as the only
> extension headers allowed are object headers, which describe the object body
> (which would be sent for a corresponding GET request).

That's not quite accurate, but reflects a semantic error I made in the
spec which will be fixed for the next revision.  Receiving applications
should treat unknown (to them) header fields as entity headers, but that
does not mean that only entity headers can be extended.  The server is 
still sending a response header and clients that understand it will treat
it as a response header.

Anyway, this type of information (site info) does not belong in the
headers -- it belongs as the entity content (as we did for /robots.txt).
I vote for "/siteinfo.txt" as the standard URL.  Once we agree among
our group, we can make the suggestion to www-talk.

.........Roy