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

Re: PEP Battle Plan [rexmit, garbled]

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:19:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610211119.NAA22868@wsooti10.win.tue.nl>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, moore@cs.utk.edu, khare@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen:
>
>At 03:38 PM 10/20/96 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>> selection of multiple variants of a resource (by 
>>>allowing the client, rather than the server, to make the selection),  
>>
>>PEP negotiates on _services_.  Negotiation on _content_ is orthogonal
>>to PEP, and this WG is already working on a content negotiation
>>mechanism with the attributes you mention above.
>
>I don't think there's much of a difference at all! PEP is about
>extensions
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Well, I think we need to make a separation between 

 1) extensions which offer content rendering facilities and

 2) extensions which offer protocol services.

In my opinion, not making this separation will destroy cachability.

Transparent content negotiation was designed to handle 1) among other
things.  I hope that PEP will handle 2).  If you think that PEP should
be made to handle 1) because nothing else does, we have a big
synchronization problem.

>Henrik

Koen.
Received on Monday, 21 October 1996 04:24:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:16 EDT