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

Re: New feature negotiation syntax

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:45:01 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706071245.OAA10852@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: 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/3434
Yaron Goland:
>So Spake Koen:
>>We cannot have one negotiation mechanism.  There are two main reasons
>>why we will have more than one:
>>- we do not know enough about requirements to be able to make a
>>   final, unified mechanism
>> - the big browser implementers are not interested in having a
>>   unified scripting API
>I believe your first point misses the mark. 

rom the rest of this thread, I gather that your opinion is that
client-side scripting is the final, unified negotiation mechanism.
Like Ted Hardie, I disagree: some user agents this workgroup wants to
support won't be capable of doing active content.  A combination of
TCN and active content will give the service author a better coverage.

>As for your second point, might I respectfully suggest that it is
>inappropriate to make such bold statements when you are not in full
>possession of the facts.

If I were in full possession of the facts, I would be playing the
stock market in stead of making bold statements.  I get my version of
the facts from the media, and by talking to people who follow
scripting more closer than I do.  Of course, you could argue that I am
reading the wrong newspapers.  But they don't call it the browser wars
for nothing.

>                Yaron

Received on Saturday, 7 June 1997 05:52:25 UTC

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