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

Re: draft-ietf-http-negotiation-02.txt

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:36:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707191736.TAA17562@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3821
Graham Klyne:
>At 07:59 PM 7/14/97 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote:
>>No, this looks about right, though I would add
>>  feature-set --> ftag
>I cannot find a syntax production for feature-set in your draft.

There is none, I drew the arrow to mean `uses'.  Feature sets are an
important concept in the draft, but as they never appear on the wire,
there are no syntax rules for them.

>>>* Section 8.4:
>>>Are there any circumstances in which a response from a transparently
>>>negotiable resource is not required to include an 'Alternates:' header?
>>Yes.  If the response is an error, list or adhoc response, Alternates
>>need not be included.
>Aha!  So Normal and Choice responses containing a transparently negotiated
>resource are required to carry an 'Alternates' header?

A transparently negotiated resource may never send a normal response
(see the table in section 12.1), but you are right about  the choice


Received on Saturday, 19 July 1997 10:41:15 UTC

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