W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1998

Re: Looking for comments on the HTTP Extension draft

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:35:44 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
At 09:31 12/18/98 -0800, Chris Newman wrote:
>I only skimmed the HTTP extensions draft and got the impression it was
>unnecessarily complex.  I won't have time to give a detailed critique
>before going on vacation, so I hope someone else will.  The following
>point is important:

Things have to be as simple as possible but no simpler. The choice between
parameters vs. name spaces have been discussed for a long time and the
consensus is to go with name spaces. Both solutions have pros and cons -
none is significantly simpler than the other.

>FYI, there was a long discussion in the USEFOR WG on header field prefixes
>for headers with various characteristics.  At the last IETF meeting of
>USEFOR, the room reached the conclusion that adding such prefixes was
>unnecessary complexity.  The current model where all headers are optional 
>seems sufficient for extensibility.  There was even a discussion of
>labelling hop-to-hop headers in Netnews which is similar to the HTTP proxy
>problem, and the same conclusion about unnecessary complexity was reached.

What I believe you are saying is that HTTP is sufficient as is without an
extension mechanism like the one proposed. I think the experience from the
multiple ways HTTP is actually being extended clearly indicates that this
is not the case.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Friday, 18 December 1998 21:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:59 UTC