Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Date: Tue, Jan 20 1998


Message-Id: <199801202043.PAA01732@devnix.agranat.com>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
cc: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:43:14 -0500
From: "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
Subject: Re: First reactions to mandatory draft


SL> I think that having different URLs to identify the extentions is
SL> sufficient; if the extentions are so incompatible that they cannot
SL> be used in the same header syntax unambiguously, then they shouldn't
SL> be implemented in the same place anyway.

>>>>> "PL" == Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com> writes:

PL> What? First, if two groups invented the extension independently,
PL> there will almost certainly be _no_ relation between them. Second,
PL> if there's just a URL, how can you tell which headers go with that
PL> URL?

  If I don't understand the extention it doesn't matter whether or not
  I know what headers go with it - I return an error anyway.

  That is my point, and I'll restate it as a question:

  Is the goal of the draft to specify how to require the use of a
  particular extention, or is it to specify how to do dynamically
  loaded extentions?

  The former is important, the latter is an interesting academic
  exercise.

PL> I always thought it was obvious that the Man header was required
PL> to come _ahead_ of any uses -- but I can't recall if the spec
PL> _says_ that.

  I didn't see it, but even if it did I don't think that there is any
  requirement that proxies preserve header field order so you can't
  count on it.

PL> 23-Skidoo and 65-SKidoo are _not_ the same header, so they shouldn't be
PL> folded.

  They are for CGI purposes after the prefixes have been removed (or
  are we going to require that CGIs also understand prefixes?).

--
Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/