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

Re: New feature negotiation syntax

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970604103617.12205A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3397

On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> > 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.

I believe that Yaron's approach is interesting but from my perspective
it is not an alternative to TCN. It isn't content negotiation at all 
but rather client side active content.

Where I believe Yaron and I would disagree is that active content can and
should ride on top of TCN as a negotiable feature(s). I believe that
active content will raise cain for indexing engins as well as limited
resource clients. A major site which wanted to be effectively indexed,
provide a 'compelling experience' and provide reasonable support for the
more limited clients would provide three variants:

   acp (active client page)
   ixp (index page)
   fcp (functionally challenged page)

With the right request, the client should beable to retrieve the correct
page on a single round trip as if TCN didn't exist. 

In this manner, the two mechanisms are quite symbiotic.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 10:54:28 UTC

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