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 16:29:39 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502EE9C02@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov'" <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>, "'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/3430
Sorry, I meant we in the sense of Microsoft along with other vendors
with whom I spoke. However I will take this opportunity to weasel some
more and reduce the scope to just me. My statements in this matter
should ONLY be taken as reflecting my own opinion. I should not have
used "we".

		Thanks for giving me the chance to correct my previous

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov
> [SMTP:hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov]
> Sent:	Friday, June 06, 1997 4:02 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland; 'koen@win.tue.nl'; masinter@parc.xerox.com;
> http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: New feature negotiation syntax
> Yaron,
> 	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.
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 16:31:56 UTC

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