W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Negotiation in draft 01

From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 16:05:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199508092005.QAA04455@beach.w3.org>
To: Jim Seidman <jim@spyglass.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>In my last note, I was trying to ask if the negotiation changes were
>discussed on the list.  My understanding of IETF operation (correct me if
>I'm wrong) is that the working group mailing list is supposed to be the
>primary forum for discussion and the meetings are to be secondary.  I get
>the impression that these issues were discussed at the meeting, but not on
>the list (until now, much later), which I think is wrong.

Almost right.  The working group mailing list is the only place where
we are allowed to poll for rough consensus (i.e., rough consensus at a
meeting has no meaning unless it is also affirmed on the list).  It is
impossible for all face-to-face discussions to be reflected back to the
mailing list -- the bandwidth simply isn't there, and I'm too slow a
typist to do it myself.  Therefore, the input is reflected in the next
draft and the WG is then polled for consensus.  It only seems wrong because
it took so bloody long for me to finish the draft, for which I apologize
again.

>1. Change the behavior back to draft 00 where the absence of Accept-Charset
>or Accept-Encoding indicates support for only iso-8859-1 or identity
>encodings, respectively.
>
>2. In the absence of Accept-Charset or Accept-Encoding set qc to 0.001 for
>all possibilities other than iso-8859-1 or identity encodings.

Identity encoding won't exist if we get rid of CTE.

>>I suggest that we allow
>>inclusion of the default charsets, such that
>>
>>   Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1
>>
>>implies acceptance of only that charset and US-ASCII (which would always
>>be implied).  No accept-charset would be the same as accepting all, and
>>given an accept-charset, unlisted charsets would be qc=0.
>
>Would this have a different effect than just saying "Accept-Charset:" (with
>no charsets listed)?   In any case, do I understand correctly that you're
>proposing going back to qc or qe = 0 (rather than 0.001) for unlisted types?
>If that's a correct interpretation of what you're saying, it's fine with me.

Yes, that is what I was saying (it is a return to what I had prior to
Danvers, with some additional explanation).

If anyone in the WG disagrees, this is the time to voice your opinion.  
Please site specific examples of why you disagree, so that the WG can
judge which solution is the best given our constraints.


 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                      Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
                      (fielding@w3.org)                (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 13:10:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:24 EDT