W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: [RFC] HTTP Information Request

From: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:14:33 +0300
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200706192314.33815.v13@priest.com>

On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> For one thing you posted the message on a Saturday, and it's only
> Tuesday today..

  You're right... Sorry :-)

> Personally I am missing a list of information tokens clients should be
> expected to support.  We have talked about the timezone. What else do
> you have in mind that this mechanism should be used for. It's a bit hard
> to discuss the mechanism without a few use cases to back it up..

  I believe such an option may partially change the way web works. Some 
information I think of:

* Timezone
* Location
* Sex
* Interests
* Screen/window size
* Mood :-)
* Age/DoB
* Computer-related Technical Level
* Accessibility requirements
* Anything that can personalize a page or a service, or automate transactions

  Even thought this may seem as providing excessive information, I believe 
that one will be able to perform some common tasks without having to create 
accounts for storing personal preferences.

  The applications of this can be very usefull to google for example to 
improve its targeted advertisements, to online shops to offer better 
suggestions, to web applications to display different error messages and 
become more accessible etc...

  It will also alleviate the HTTP from possible unneeded future header 
additions (at least the Timezone header :-) and reduce the transmited headers 
since they will need to be send on-demand. Even the Accept-Language could be 

> Also see the negotiation a little problematic as it relies on the client
> keeping track of prior preferences of the server, but it's no worse than
> cookies so I don't mind much.. authors using the feature just have to
> learn how to get it negotiated proper.

  Since the support of it is completely optional I don't believe that it is a 

  Once again, thanks a lot for replying!
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 20:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC