W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:39:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUiDy8f9UJL+ckfPDVbxJoVSVvJj2Um_2urN4hOjWNcEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 February 2013 07:59, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, considering that the http/2 discussion has already touched on
> the introduction of stateful compression, a potential switch to
> binary-header values, elimination of various elements such as response
> status-text and the host header, and so on, a discussion of
> eliminating conneg wouldn't be too extreme :-) ... The one thing to
> consider is that it ought to be at least possible to deprecate conneg
> without removing it entirely. We'll need to keep the mechanism around
> for http/1 interop and passthrough but we can say instruct developers
> that conneg ought to be avoided and we can discuss and highlight the
> appropriate alternatives.

Dropping those other things is largely possible because they are
either invalid, or are being replaced by an analogue.  I think it
unlikely that conneg can be safely dropped.  There are just too many
people using it.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:40:20 UTC

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