W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Advanced Status Reporting and XML vs HTML

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:44:04 -0800
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <20001219154404.B452@mana.ebuilt.com>
> So, my proposal is to kill two birds with one stone.  We pretty much agreed
> that the client should advertise its support for this feature in requests,
> presumably by adding a header.  It's straight-forward to allow this header
> to provide information on what kind of thing the client wants to receive.

I don't think so.  Every time the client advertises support for a feature
it adds to the request latency of every request and creates a new variable
against which content selection algorithms must apply.

This goes back to the discussion of content negotiation in HTTP/1.0.
Accept headers are a bad idea.  They have always been a bad idea.
A better solution is to provide the client with the primary content
choice and a means of obtaining the new content. Or, if the alternatives
are small, as in this case, just include the status in such a way that
it has no adverse impact on clients that do not understand it.

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 18:39:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:22 UTC