W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Media feature considerations in HTTP

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:57:04 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, sean@mysterylights.com
Message-ID: <20020401085704.B7984@www.markbaker.ca>
Hi Graham.  CCd to www-archive, not www-tag.

I fear I'm not communicating very well ...

> >With "Man" from RFC 2774, "Man: Content-features" means that the client
> >is requiring that the Content-features header be understood.  If that
> >client wanted to ask that a particular media feature, say "xmlns", be
> >understood, it would not be able to use 2774.
> 
> Yes, this is true.  But I don't see it as a limitation of the 
> Content-features: header field, but as inherent in the design goals 
> underlying RFC 2774.

For sure, but it's not specific to RFC 2774.  RFC 2616 includes at
least two headers that use the same referencing capability; Vary, and
Connection.  It's really inherrent to 2616 IMO (or perhaps 822), because
header syntax treats header content as opaque, so only the header names
can be used as reference points for other headers.

This isn't saying that Content-features isn't useful, it's just pointing
out the cost of using it over using separate headers.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 08:51:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:17 GMT