- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:24:57 +1100
- To: "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@Comcast.com>
- Cc: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07/12/2011, at 10:46 PM, Moore, Jonathan (CIM) wrote: > On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:36 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> - brought Preference-Applied back >> >> This needs to be discussed. I'm very uneasy about turning this into Yet Another HTTP Negotiation Mechanism. > > Can you explain your unease? It seems like all the pre-existing server-side negotiation mechanisms (Accept, Accept-Language, etc.) all basically have an "express your desire but check the response anyway" semantic. For example, servers are explicitly not required to send a 406 if they can't honor an Accept header. However, there are (optional) protocol-level means that servers can use to provide more context to clients--Content-Language being a good example. Therefore, in some sense, they are all client "preferences" one way or another. Perhaps we're just defining "the last negotiation mechanism you'll ever need"? > > Or are you suggesting server-side negotiation was a Bad Idea, and hence we shouldn't be pursuing other means for it? More the latter; experience has shown that conneg is of limited value, and can be abused + cause more problems than it's worth. There's a relevant HTTPbis ticket, don't remember offhand which one. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 23:25:35 UTC