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

Re: feature negotiation

From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 22:25:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01I1NA78JNEY9QUWSH@INNOSOFT.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).
    
I think this is an excellent idea. I would modify the proposal somewhat
to have a generic set of features that may or may not be applicable to
a given type. Each type definition would then list the features that apply
to it.

				Ned
Received on Sunday, 25 February 1996 22:29:29 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:46 EDT