Re: HTTP server driven content negotiation

From: Philipp Hoschka (ph@w3.org)
Date: Fri, Mar 19 1999


Message-Id: <199903191320.OAA16783@www45.inria.fr>
To: "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>
cc: www-tv@w3.org
From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:20:07 +0100
Subject: Re: HTTP server driven content negotiation 


On 07/03/1999, "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>  wrote:
>When making content-based system profiles, it would be handy to tag
>broadcast content.
>
>As best as I can tell, CC/PP and the IETF conneg work is not suitable since
>it requires the client to first describe its profile (which cannot
>generally be done in TV).

I think both of these are basically methods to write device descriptions.
They do not define protocols, and thus do not require that the client
describes its profile.

I would thus propose to tag the content with the description of the
device it is intended for. Looking at it from that angle, both CC/PP
and conneg seem applicable to this particular problem. 

Note that at least in the case of CC/PP, the device description 
can be replaced by a URI pointing to a location where the description 
is stored. The intent is to avoid sending around lengthy device
descriptions. In many cases, this URI can be considered as an identifier
only, i.e. there's no need to actually downlad the description - the
description is "hard-wired" into the receiving device.