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

Re: New feature negotiation syntax

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:40:52 PDT
Message-Id: <3394B994.2D5D@parc.xerox.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3393
> Larry, it seems that you want me to write a requirements document
> which proves that Yaron's approach is wrong.  But I cannot write such
> a document, because I think Yaron's approach is right.

Not at all. I just think we need a requirements document that says
why we need more than what's already in HTTP/1.1. If there is no
single solution that meets the requirements, then we can evaluate
them independently for what sub-problem they're solving, and whether
we've covered the entire requirement space.

> As I said at www6, it will
> be up to the service author do decide which negotiation mechanism, or
> which combination of negotiation mechanisms, is appropriate for the
> content at hand.

An unbounded list of possible negotiation *mechanisms* is completely
unacceptable, and it may not be acceptable to have more than one!
If service providers can decide on different mechanisms, then it would
mean that a client that wanted to interoperate with all service
providers would have to implement ALL of the negotiation mechanisms.

Perhaps this is another of those "it should go without saying",
but interworking of clients with all servers should be a
requirement of any extension to HTTP.

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 17:43:47 UTC

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