- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 15:10:13 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "ietf-http-ext (E-mail)" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
At 11:23 3/2/98 PST, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: >Maybe the right approach is to focus on a resource-by-resource >basis. I.e., don't try too hard to define a protocol that >works like > > OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1 > Host: foo.com For the OPTIONS method this may in fact make sense just as well as it is possible to get metainformation about a set of resources (which may or may not reside on the same origin server) using PICS labels, RDF records, URNs etc. The question whether the information can be trusted is entirely up to the user and will often be a function of where it comes from, where it applies to, etc. Mandatory describes which extensions are applied to an HTTP message and how to deal with them. It does explicitly not deal with metainformation - this is left to the individual extensions, or can be provided by the OPTIONS method, RDF, PICS, or any other mechanism that you can think of. >I'll certainly grant that it adds round-trips if we insist >that a client test options on a per-resource basis. Metainformation about resources can not guarantee that it is sufficient or needed to access the resource but it can give a good hint of what the communicating parties can expect. Henrik -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Monday, 2 March 1998 15:13:39 UTC