- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:31:12 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 06:40:36AM -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > [moved to www-archive because I'm sick of www-tag] Thanks. I was about to do the same. > > And why, instead of adding a new HTTP method or header, why not simply use > > content-negotiation? the meta-info will have its own ETag (provided ETages > > are consistent in the server), its own URI. Even if it is automatically > > generated (see XMP extraction of a JPEG or whatever format). > > How would that work? "Accept: application/meta-html" or something? Exactly. "meta-html" is still HTML, so should be using the text/html media type. Conneg is for handling variability in representations, not variability in resources. The latter is what URIs are for. To Yves; Re OPTIONS, that's a good example, but it appears to me (as I've used it quite extensively), that it falls on the other side of the equation that evaluates the trade offs with respect to latency. In the uses I made of it, an extra round trip was a non-starter. Re PROPFIND/PATCH, *YES*, GET and PUT should have been used instead. See; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0091.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0097.html http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7#limitations MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 07:28:21 UTC