Re: Another try at OPTIONS

At 04:47 PM 07/22/97 MDT, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

>	"PEP"	Compliance is with a PEP-specified extension, identified
>		using a quoted-string containing the PEP extension
>		declaration.

There is no reason to have a special type for PEP extensions. Information
about PEP extensions (called extension policies) can be transmitted via any
number of mechanisms as pure metadata that doesn't take any action in the
message where they are included.

An extension is applied to a message by adding an extension declaration,
which differs from a policy in that the extension is being used in the
message.

There is work going on designing a generic metadata model by combining the
experiences from PICS and XML, but as this is not finished yet, the PEP
spec defines it's own mechanism for distributing metainformation (in PEP,
it's called a "policy" describing which extensions either MUST or MAY be
applied to a particular resource.)

>    proxy4.microscape.com responds:
>	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>	Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 20:21:51 GMT
>	Server: SuperProxy/1.0
>	Public: OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, PUT, POST, TRACE
>	Compliance: rfc=1543, rfc=2068, hdr=set-proxy
>	Compliance: hdr=wonder-bar-http-widget-set
>	Compliance: PEP="http://foobar.pep.org/pepmeister/"
>	Content-Length: 0

With PEP-Info, the server would send:

       proxy4.microscape.com responds:
	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
	Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 20:21:51 GMT
	Server: SuperProxy/1.0
	Public: OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, PUT, POST, TRACE
	Compliance: rfc=1543, rfc=2068, hdr=set-proxy
	Compliance: hdr=wonder-bar-http-widget-set
	PEP-Info: {{id "http://foobar.pep.org/pepmeister/"}
		    {for "/" *} {strength must}}
	Content-Length: 0

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@w3.org>
World Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-346
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 1997 09:30:18 UTC