- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:59:49 -0700
- To: "'fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>, "'jg@w3.org'" <jg@w3.org>
>---------- >From: koen@win.tue.nl[SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl] >Subject: Re: Variant-ID proposal > >Roy T. Fielding: >> >>Argh, no, you don't need any of this stuff. > >Yes I do. > >> The Alternates mechanism >>must be completely orthogonal to Vary. > >I agree 100%. That is why I think we need this stuff. If we don't >have it, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make transparent >negotiation (Alternates) orthogonal to opaque negotiation (Vary). > >If you have two orthogonal mechanisms, you can't have them share the >same space in the Cval: header. This sounds to me like you're confusing protocol mechanisms and implementation mechanisms. There are two orthogonal protocol mechanisms here, but in any server, I would imagine only one implementation mechanism, which would _indeed_ share the same variant-id scheme. Hence, I don't agree that the design principle you invoke applies to this case. Which is why I still agree with Roy, and don't see that mental models need to be gotten into synch at a lower level of abstraction than what I said above. Paul
Received on Monday, 15 April 1996 21:29:51 UTC