- From: Daniel DuBois <ddubois@rafiki.spyglass.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 12:08:01 -0500
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Daniel DuBois <ddubois@rafiki.spyglass.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> I'd rather see qs defined to be between .8
>>and 1. But maybe that's just me.
>
>I don't want such a restriction on qs. I think I have a completely
>different interpretation of qs: I see a low qs as an advice against
Well, a qs of zero in nonsensical. It makes a variant completely
unservable. Why is it even on the server. (Why even serve a document
that's of "very bad quality") But a q of 0 has important functionality. So
in a 'theory' sense there must be something fundamentally different between
q and qs, and hence a multiplication of the two might not be an appropriate
algorythm to determine what to send.
>1 = very good quality
>1<x<=0.75 = good quality
>0.75<x<=0.5 = acceptable quality
>0.5<x<=0.25 = bad quality
>0.25<x<0 = very bad quality
>0 = unacceptable quality
This would be an improvement certainly, if not the answer.
>>And this allows for
>>someone to say "I really don't want text/plain no matter what, and no I
>>don't want to renegotiate"
>
>You can already say that with
> text/plain;q=0
>in the Accept header, irrespective of whether A or B is chosen as the
>`when to send 300' definition.
Sorry. I didn't say what I meant at all. I was thinking of something like
"Accept:text/plain;q=.1, */*". I should have described this as "I prefer
anything over text/plain, and I don't want to reactively negotiate". */*
under the Koen Scheme would trigger a 300.
That's certainly a contrived example. Maybe we just need a "reactive
negotiation is way OK with me" directive. "Accept-300s"...
A. if (q[maxQitem] != maxq)
then send 300
B. if (every maxQitem was derived from a media range)
then send 300.
If we have no directive, then one of the above, or an as-of-yet unproposed
algorythm similiar to the above should be settled on as a way of generating
a 300 response. Any other opinion on this besides me and Koen?
>it should, if possible, be made in such a way that there is no
>tradeoff between shortening accept headers and risking inferior
>responses.
C. if (q[maxQi] != maxq) && (qs[maxQi] != maxqs)
then send 300
D. if (q[maxQi] != maxq) && (qs[maxQi] != maxqs) && (ql[maxQi] != maxql)
then send 300
E. if (maxQ != 1)
then send 300
F. if (minqs == maxqs)
then only send 300 as specd (on multiple maxQs)
G. ???
Which is the most flexible, powerful, simplest, and 'best' way to go I have
no clue.
-----
Dan DuBois, Software Animal ddubois@spyglass.com
(708) 505-1010 x532 http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 1995 10:12:26 UTC