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

Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:16:58 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711192316.AAA24284@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4751
Jeffrey Mogul:
>Koen writes:
>    And no gunky parameters about compression quality or dictionaries
>    please -- adding these would take the whole thing way beyond a 1.1
>    cleanup, and how are we ever going to claim two independent
>    implementations for such things if we add them?
>Well, Henrik has already promised one (right, Henrik?) and I would
>guess that he is right; adding a parameter parser for Accept-TE
>is relatively easy if you've already had to right the same parser
>for "chunked".
>But beyond that, if we don't add parameters NOW, we will never
>be able to do so, because then there will be an incompatibility
>with the installed base.

Let me clarify my position: I think it would be OK to add an
extensibility mechanism of the usual ;name=value type, but we should
not define lots of complicated name=value pairs right now.


Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 15:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC