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

RE: New feature negotiation syntax

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:30:30 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502EE9BF6@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: lawrence@agranat.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3425
So spake Koen:
>If Microsoft decides that they want to do negotiation only with
>scripting languages, this implies that they want to provide an
>infrastructure for content `best negotiated with MSIE'.  And I don't
>care what their press releases say about standardising languages and

Actually ECMA is now standardizing the syntax for client side scripting
and the W3C is now standardizing the object model that scripting will


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	koen@win.tue.nl [SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl]
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 28, 1997 2:11 AM
> To:	masinter@parc.xerox.com
> Cc:	lawrence@agranat.com; Yaron Goland;
> http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: New feature negotiation syntax
> Larry Masinter:
> >
> [...about feature negotiation...]
> >
> >Right now, we have a proposal for very simple 'script language',
> >but it's gotten more complex over the few months we've been
> >talking about it.
> Larry, I think your account here is a very skewed representation of
> history:
> > First features were just binary (present,
> >not present), just for dealing with things like 'tables'.
> >Then we added numeric values for features (width, height), as
> >well as enumerated values (envelope, transparency, paper),
> >with equality and inequality, and then we started adding
> >comparisons. 
> Tags, numeric values, and (in)equality were all introduced _at the
> same time_ in section 4 of draft-holtman-http-negotiation-01.txt (June
> 13,1996).  draft-holtman-http-negotiation-03.txt (September 6, 1996)
> added enumerated values.  Since then, the only changes have been in
> syntax and in numeric ranges.
> >Soon, you'll have conditional expressions and...
> >hey, turing complete: it's a client-side script language.
> I don't see this progression to a turing complete language.
> Anyway, if this WG (or anyone else) would try to standardise a single
> interoperable turing-complete scripting language for negotiation, this
> attempt would fail completely. The only way to get real
> interoperability is to keep away from full scripting languages.
> Stripting languages are now like HTML was two years ago: the major
> vendors think it is in their commercial interest to keep scripting
> languages subtly incompatible (usually in the API).
> If Microsoft decides that they want to do negotiation only with
> scripting languages, this implies that they want to provide an
> infrastructure for content `best negotiated with MSIE'.  And I don't
> care what their press releases say about standardising languages and
> APIs.
> >> 2) Requires a common API for script to read client/user preferences
> >>      (I assume here that we are not just talking about a script
> that
> >>      displays a user dialog - that is no improvement over serving a
> >>      page of HTML that presents the alternative versions).
> >
> >The 'common API' would be just 'get registered features of
> >this environment'. That is, the feature tag registration 
> >could still be used! It's just that you'd use it in a script
> >rather than in the protocol.
> Yes, the same point is made in section 4.9 of the new draft.
>     [Scott Lawrence:]
> >>   I think it only fair to ask that if you are going to present an
> >>   alternative that you get on with presenting it, and if not either
> >> make suggestions to improve the current proposal or just state that
> >>   you won't implement it and let those of us who are implementing
> it
> >>   get on with agreeing on an interoperable solution.
> >
> >I encourage you to demonstrate "running code"; I think it will
> >dispell a lot of the issues when we have some actual practice
> >to consider, rather than speculation. 
> We already had running TCN code (conneg-uax interoperating with an
> Apache mod_negotiation) in the fall of 1996.  I reported on more
> implementation work at the last IETF.  We cannot make progress if you
> keep forgetting this.
> >Larry
> Koen.
Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 15:32:36 UTC

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