W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

feature negotiation

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 20:02:32 PST
To: koen@win.tue.nl
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, koen@win.tue.nl
Message-Id: <96Feb25.200240pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> [## Question to be resolved: Should a rudimentary feature negotiation
> facilities that work for 90% of the cases be added as a stopgap??  I
> wonder if we won't be doing the web community a disservice if we delay
> a 90% solution in order to construct a 99% solution for HTTP 1.2.
> After all, most negotiation that happens now is on tables vs. no
> tables, not on language or MIME type.
> ##]

I think we should just put this as a separate issue.

Here's a strawman proposal:

*   request that IANA extend media type registrations to allow
    registration of feature names for each media type.
    90% solution says: feature names are atomic, contain
    only alphanumeric characters, feature registration
    for an Internet Media Type requires same documentation
    rules as for Media Type but no waiting period (since 
    there are no additional security considerations).
*    Extend syntax of Accept: to allow


Register "color, 24bit" to image/gif, "color" to
application/postscript and "tables, font, style, center" to text/html.

Accept: text/html;version=2:q=0.8:features=tables;font

This assumes we can unblock IANA registrations. I don't know any other
way of negotiating features unless feature names are registered,
though. (Otherwise, where's the web of trust?)
Received on Sunday, 25 February 1996 20:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC