I think such a namespace policy for attributes would be useful for the examples in the spec and related documents as well. An example is much easier to understand if the contents is well defined.
AE: yep I agree with all of this - @Ralf would you be willing to place this up on the wiki under a page named something along the lines of "Extensions"
Will do.
If just for the purpose of the example I can somewhat agree. Otherwise I would say the Content-type header only reflect the body and not what kind of information you happen to have in the header.
IMO, header and body are explicitly linked by content type - e.g. HTML - content type is specified as HTML in the header and the body will reflect this. It doesn't make sense to specify HTML as the content type in the header and then send a JPEG ;-)
Ah, but you misunderstand. In the examples you are using only headers (no body) and thus, IMO, the content-type is irrelevant. regards, Ralf