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

Conneg for media types [was: HTTP Information Request]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:14:08 +1000
Message-Id: <774DFB86-2D47-4D52-BEA3-C1967D74E857@mnot.net>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81


On 22/06/2007, at 4:54 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>
> I'm willing to take a stab at writing some text if this gets
> on the issues list.
>
> Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg- 
> request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:32 PM
> To: LMM@acm.org
> Cc: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [RFC] HTTP Information Request
>
>
> In the linked message, you say:
>
>> I think we should deprecate HTTP content negotiation, if only to
>> make it clear to people reading the spec that it doesn't really
>> work that way in practice.
>
> Seems like some explanatory text, at the least, might help people
> understand this feature a bit better.
>
>
> On 22/06/2007, at 3:27 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>>
>> This proposal seems to fall into the same trap that most proposed
>> HTTP extensions fall into: there's no motivation to deploy this
>> in clients because most servers don't support it, and no motivation
>> to deploy this in servers, because most clients don't support it.
>>
>> Unless you have a better story for how this will get deployed,
>> its mainly an academic exercise.
>>
>> Things might have been different when HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 were
>> being developed, but that's not the case now.
>>
>> That's the general problem. The specific problem with this
>> is that it's a kind of reverse content negotiation, and many
>> of the features you're thinking of (e.g., screen/window size,
>> accessibility requirements) fit into the framework of media
>> negotiation, and the others might, with a bit of stretching
>> (e.g., "timezone" as a media feature meaning "content
>> appropriate for someone in the named timezone", or, more
>> likely, locale.)  In most cases, we talked about the combination
>> of client characteristics, capabilities and preferences,
>> which seems to cover almost all of your tokens.
>>
>> There's been a great deal of work in this area, most of
>> it not deployed (for reasons above), e.g.,
>>
>> http://www.imc.org/ietf-medfree/ in IETF and
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-ra/
>> http://www.zurich.ibm.com/ucp/
>>
>> In general, media negotiation in HTTP hasn't been successful,
>> see note & following discussion:
>>
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-April/001707.html
>>
>> Larry
>> -- 
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 06:14:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT