- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:06:53 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: kweide@tezcat.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jg@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding: > >>> > A remark regarding 14.1 Accept: >>> > It's a pity there is a "q=", but not a "mxb=". An oversight or >>> > intentional? >>> >>> The conneg group decided it "wasn't needed" based on the observation >>> that browsers didn't implement it. >> >> There is a way in the latest lynx code to specify it via the .mailcap >> file, and I understand that the Apache server can make use of it. > >You should ask Larry if the issue can be reopened and mxb restored. >I personally feel it was a mistake to remove it, and since we have >already missed the boat on getting HTTP/1.1 implemented in the most >recent wave of browsers, we might as well get it right. If we want to do it *right*, we should not re-introduce mxb, but introduce an Accept-Length header. I did not just remove mxb because it was unused, I removed it because it was was the kind of unused cruft that brings a protocol much closer to the point at which no extension is possible anymore because of interference effects. Personally, I think people vastly overestimate the good a `don't ever send me something longer than X bytes' mechanism can do: if this actually was useful, browsers would have `abort all transfers longer than X bytes' configuration options by now. But if we are going to have such a mechanism, we at least need to make it orthogonal to the other negotiation headers. > ...Roy T. Fielding Koen.
Received on Thursday, 22 August 1996 05:15:22 UTC