- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 22:40:13 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: > >At 11:09 AM 5/19/97 MDT, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > >>As Larry says, at the bottom of the hierarchy we want >>an enumerated type (essentially opaque) for specifying a feature >>tag "on the wire". We could just as easily use small integers >>for these, but using ASCII tags might have some benefit in >>debugging things. In fact, if we made a rule that ALL new HTTP >>header-names and tags were to be composed of randomly chosen >>(but unique) small integers, we would avoid a lot of useless debate. >>HTTP is for computers to talk to each other, not for humans. > >This is in fact exactly what PEP is all about: Providing a mechanism for >defining a unique, dynamic mapping between an extension identified by a URL >and the local representation in the form of random (short) headers. True, PEP does a mapping, but it still needs equality tests on unmapped extension identifiers (URIs). I believe Jeff is talking about mapping away this equality test problem. A question: which method do the current PEP test implementations use to compare extension identifiers (URIs) for equality? >Henrik Koen.
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 13:44:18 UTC