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

Re: Content negotiation requirements

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:00:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707141800.UAA05739@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3751
Graham Klyne:
>At 08:15 PM 7/4/97 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote:
>>In other types of negotiation, where two machines are involved, a
>>symmetric metadata format may be a nice win, but not so in TCN.  In
>>TCN, it would just add to the complexity of defining the choice
>I'm not convinced.  But I can see I must produce some more concrete
>evidence for my view -- I'll think about it (it may take a while).
>also later comments.)


>Question:  if I could offer (a) a generic framework and metadata
>and (b) indicate how these might be subsetted to current HTTP/TCN
>capabilities, would you consider that this would address your

One of my concerns is that symmetric mechanisms would add complexity
to HTTP negotiation, so if your (b) is simple enough, this concern
would be addressed.

However, another concern is that any new HTTP negotiation framework
must not shift paradigms more than is needed.  Especially for the
simple cases, the metadata format must stay as close as possible to
the way the target metadata authors think about negotiation.  And
these target authors are not programmers who write server-side
rendering engines, but content authors who may not have any knowledge
of programming or mathematical logic.  This puts some limitations to
the amount of complexity the protocol can shift to the metadata

>(NOTE: I am NOT proposing to re-design TCN or any part of HTTP!)

Received on Monday, 14 July 1997 11:02:42 UTC

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