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

Call for comments on feature tag syntax

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 23:16:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199705192116.XAA20271@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3311

In http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q2/0256.html , I
proposed a revised syntax for feature tags, which merged the PEP
extension identifier and TCN feature tag namespaces.  This proposal got
a largely negative reception on this list.

I will try to summarise the current situation with my ID editor hat

* The idea of merging the PEP extension identifier and TCN feature tag
  namespaces is not liked by many people on this list, because they
  think that using URIs in feature negotiation is a bad idea.

* On the other hand, in Memphis and at www6 some people have told me that
  they like to see a merger of these spaces.

I'm now considering whether to 

a) continue trying to merge these namespaces, hoping that some kind of
   solution can be found, or to

b) revert back to the old syntax, with feature tags being HTTP tokens.

Note that it will be trivial under b) to map PEP extension identifiers
_onto_ feature tags by defining a `pep' tag, which will be present
with URI values.  But we will have two separate namespaces.

I'm calling for opinions on this issue.  

If you have any preference for a) or b), please respond on this list
or in private e-mail (in which case I will summarise).  If you recently
expressed your preference on this list, there is no need to respond
again.  However, if you only talked to me in Memphis or at www6,
please _do_ repeat your views here.


Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 14:18:30 UTC

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