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

Some notes on content negotiation

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:03:13 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199511132303.XAA08032@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding:
>[Koen Holtman:]
>> I'm trying to decide if I should postpone comments on content
>> negotiation mechanisms until after the new 1.1 draft has been
>> released.
>
>Are they different than the comments already on the mailing list archive?

I have not yet written out any comments, all I have now are notes, but
yes, most comments would be different from the stuff already the
mailing list archive.

>If so, then they may be useful, and I'd prefer to hear them before
>generating a new draft.

OK, I'll write out some of the more `high level' notes.

I tried to define some superstructure to the existing header
definitions.  There are two reasons two have such a superstructure:
  - it allows one to better state the definitions
  - it allows one to see areas that are not yet defined.

This is what came out:

`Negotiation port' model of content negotiation
-----------------------------------------------

For various reasons, web software should distinguish between two kinds
of URI types with respect to content negotiation:
  1) normal URIs
  2) negotiation ports

A normal URI (e.g. http://blah.com/animals/cat.gif) is bound to one
entity, which may be dynamic (the entity may change through time).
There is no content negotiation when accessing a normal URI.

A negotiation port URI (e.g. http://blah.com/animals/cat) is not bound
to an entity, but to a `variant set', which is a set of normal URIs,
e.g

 { http://blah.com/animals/cat.gif , http://blah.com/animals/cat.jpg } 

, where each element in this set has certain properties known (at
least) to the server.  The variant set and variant properties can be
dynamic, they can change through time.

Normal and negotiation port URIs cannot be distinguished by their
syntax.  To determine the status of a certain URI, a request for that
URI must be made: The URI is a negotiation port if and only if an URI:
header is present in the resulting response.

When a user agent does a request to a negotiation port URI P, a
content negotiation process is initiated, which results in either an
error message at some point, or the choosing of one normal URI U from
the variant set, after which the contents bound to U are displayed by
the user agent.

The content negotiation process can take multiple requests and
responses.

In the most simple case, with one request and one response, the
request on the negotiation port P generates a 200 OK response, with
the response message containing:

 1) in the response body:
      the entity body bound to the chosen URI U
 2) in the response headers:
      2a) headers describing the variant set of the negotiation 
          port P (e.g. URI)
      2b) the entity headers for the chosen URI U 
          (e.g. Content-type, Location, Last-modified)
      2c) headers about the whole response
          (e.g. Pragma, Date)

One of the unresolved issues is: for every response header, does it go
under 2a), 2b), or 2c)?

One particular sticky issue is the Expires header.  Does it apply to
both URI P and URI U?  Would two different expires headers (say
Expires for 2b) and Port-Expires for 2a) ) be better?


There are a number of reasons for adopting the above model with its
clear dichotomy between two types of URI:

 - Conceptual simplicity.  This is especially important because
   the negotiation will be visible, on request, to the end user.  One
   requirement for content negotiation is that the user can manually
   request different variants of a content negotiated resource.  This
   model
    - has no recursive negotiation, which may be nice to have for
      CS purists, but which also makes a clear presentation of 
      the available variants to the user a lot more difficult
    - ensures that each variant has its own URI by which it can
      be reached directly

 - I expect that having this model will make the semantics of strange
   combinations of headers more easy to define

 - `emulation' of content negotiation by proxy caches can be
   expensive.  Under this model, caches can always recognize normal
   URIs (which make up at least 99% of all current URIs), and can
   remember that they do not need to emulate negotiation for
   them when serving them from the cache.

Summary of caching related things that need to be defined:

- how do we express the dynamism of
   a) The variant set and variant properties bound to the negotiation
      port P, and the property that P is a negotiation port
   b) the entity bound to the result URI U

- when may a conditional GET with date D on a negotiation port return
  a `not modified' code?
   i) if a) above was not modified since date D?
   ii) if both a) and b) was not modified since date D?

OK, that sums up the superstructure and the caching issues.  I have
more notes, some about the negotiation calculation itself and some
about a new option in reactive negotiation, but I don't have time to
expand them now.  I'll see if I can send them tomorrow.

> ...Roy T. Fielding

Koen.
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 15:09:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:35 EDT