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

Re: Color content negotiation

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 23:16:54 PDT
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, brian@organic.com, fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Sep10.231708pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> Now - is the right place to hash it out on this list, create a new WG, or
> to do something else?

I personally would like to see the issue of representations sender's
"potentially available document formats" and recipients "potentially
acceptable document formats" handled in a group that includes
implementors of MIME gateways and UAs.

I think this is a focussed effort that should derive a syntax that is
an outgrowth of the current media type specifications, but is able to
specify ranges, match specifications (e.g., "version <= 89a"),
extension parameters which do not occur in the MIME registration
itself (e.g., color usage for images).

In addition, it would be useful to standardize representations
corresponding to what is currently coded in HTTP headers (relative
rankings of media types and a way of specifying preferences) and
mailcap files (e.g., dispatch table for formats and methods of
handling them.)
Received on Sunday, 10 September 1995 23:19:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC