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

Re: Problems with content negotiation (was: Re: Preemptive and

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 13:55:43 PDT
To: FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Sep12.135550pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> What we have here is a classic engineering tradeoff of 'quick negotiation 
> time' vs. 'high-user-display quality documents' vs. 'high-server-display 
> quality documents' vs. 'protocol extensibility'.  If we allow for 100 MIME 
> types, where my 100 MIME types are different from your 100 MIME types which 
> are different from that server's 250 MIME types AND we want an extensible 
> protocol rather than a predefined list, it is going to take longer to do the 
> content negotiation.  It is a fact of life.  (Engineering Law: Good, Fast, 
> Cheap: Choose Any Two.)

> Just thought of this off the top of my head -- would compressing, then 
> ASCII-encoding (like UU or base64) the Accept list help?  Any feel for that?

Did you miss the suggestion that clients hash all
'content-type-determining headers' and send them as a 'accept-hash:'
instead? I suppose I'm choosing Good and Fast, at the expense of a
little extra implementation complexity. One way to think of this is
that hashing is a kind of compression mechanism -- you can compress
any amount of data into 128 bits, but decompression can be very slow
and take a large amount of communication.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 1995 14:06:32 UTC

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