Skip to content

Conversation

@hamishwillee
Copy link
Collaborator

As discussed in #41938 (comment) , response headers should not have the section on "forbidden request headers". I have modified this so that response headers listed in #41938 (comment) now have "Forbidden response header" instead.

I also updated the request and response headers to include the forbidden response information.

@hamishwillee hamishwillee requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2025 05:56
@hamishwillee hamishwillee requested review from bsmth and removed request for a team November 14, 2025 05:56
@github-actions github-actions bot added Content:HTTP HTTP docs size/m [PR only] 51-500 LoC changed labels Nov 14, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Preview URLs (71 pages)
Flaws (4)

Note! 69 documents with no flaws that don't need to be listed. 🎉

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Content-Security-Policy
Title: Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header
Flaw count: 1

  • macros:
    • Macro produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face which is a redirect

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/X-Robots-Tag
Title: X-Robots-Tag header
Flaw count: 3

  • unknown:
    • No generic content config found
    • no blog root
    • no blog root

(comment last updated: 2025-11-14 06:03:48)

</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">{{Glossary("Forbidden response header name")}}</th>
<th scope="row">{{Glossary("Forbidden response header name","Forbidden response header")}}</th>
Copy link
Member

@bsmth bsmth Nov 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the only one, so it might be good to think about changing this to:

<th scope="row">Header type</th>
<td>{{Glossary("Response header")}}, {{Glossary("Forbidden response header name", "Forbidden response header")}}</td>

And remove all of the No <tr> entries seeing as they don't add much additional info.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bsmth I did think about this. I accept it would be "better" to remove the row on the basis that given there are so few of these cases people will get use to see "no" and ignore it.

My reason for not doing this was a bit "weak" - to me it looks ugly to have a single header table. Below is what this looks like 3 ways: HTML table as it is now, HTML table with the row removed, and using a markdown table.

Do you have a preference? If not, I propose to simple remove the rows leaving us with the middle option.

image

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it looks ugly to have a single header table.

That's a good point, there's not much left in the table.

Do you have a preference? If not, I propose to simple remove the rows leaving us with the middle option.

I think that's cleaner for now. I guess eventually this is front-matter material, but removing the redundant ones is a good cleanup, IMO 👍🏻

Copy link
Member

@bsmth bsmth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot for the cleanup. One suggestion to think about for UX purposes / removing redundant info, but already a good fix, tnx 👍🏻

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Content:HTTP HTTP docs size/m [PR only] 51-500 LoC changed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants