W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Rewrite of feature tag syntax rules

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 22:40:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199705192040.WAA19930@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3308
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?  


Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 13:44:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC