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

Re: Keep-Alive Notes

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 21:35:09 PDT
To: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Oct17.213521pdt.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
someone:
> The accept-signature (or accept-hash) proposed by Larry
> Masinter looks better.

Roy:
> Only if you assume that the accept headers will never be configurable
> on a per-client basis, in which case we might as well get rid of them
> altogether.

No, not really. The main advantage is when the server only has one
presentation and the client is willing to accept: */*. In this case,
the server can ignore the accept altogether. The second case is where
the client only accepts a limited number of types for an embedded
figure; but in this case, different instances of the same browser are
likely to accept the same embed capabilities.

This does lead me to believe that along with the hash of
content-negotiation tags, you need to send another bit, which is
whether this request will accept: */*.
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 1995 21:38:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:34 EDT