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

Re: New feature negotiation syntax

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 16:01:30 -0700
Message-Id: <9706061601.ZM16574@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, "'koen@win.tue.nl\ '" <koen@win.tue.nl>, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3428
	I think I lost track of who "we" is in the statement below.
Koen is saying, as I understand it, that "we the working group" do
not have information on the requirements to create a final, unified
mechanism.  You reply with
> I believe your first point misses the mark. The issue is not an
> ignorance of requirements, rather it is that in having examined the
> requirements we have come to understand that the requirement set is so
> large that it can not be reasonably defined in any constrained fashion.
> As such, rather than trying to force content providers to contort
> themselves within whatever limits we arbitrarily set, it would seem more
> reasonable to provide them with a mechanism by which they can express
> their full range of negotiation while still producing completely
> cacheable content.

Is "we" in your statement the working group or Microsoft?  If it
is the working group, I disagree, because I believe the working group
has not yet found "a mechanism by which (content providers) can
express their full range of content negotiation while still producing
completely cacheable content." which works for all possible types
of clients and servers which might want to use HTTP.  I am perfectly
willing to believe that scripting languages meet the needs of Microsoft
and its clients, but I don't think that quite covers the entire universe of
potential uses.

If I misunderstood your words, please let me know.

				Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 16:04:32 UTC

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