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

Re: On the connection between content negotiation and caching

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 13:31:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Daniel DuBois <ddubois@rafiki.spyglass.com>
Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.951228131948.21800G-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>


On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Daniel DuBois wrote:

> But given that Content Negotiation is labeled an optional feature, that some
> of the statements int the spec could be interepreted the way you did, and
> that some people may not feel negotiation applies to non-varying resources,
> I realize the intention of the spec might not be as I had perceived.  If
> that's true, I think it should be made more explicit one way or the other.

Yes. I'm not sure if this is the right way, but there clearly must
be a way to pre-reject certain content forms. */*;q=0 would I guess 
means don't send anything I haven't listed explictly. But since
this is optional, the client must be prepared to receive junk anyway.

Assuming this is the interpretation or clarification, Jeff's original
comment basically still holds as the proxy would know that the origin
had only one choice and it wasn't acceptable.

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 13:35:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:38 EDT