W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Summary of opinions on Negotiate header

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:40:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199609242040.WAA10534@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1615

I got three responses to my earlier call for opinions.  Here are the

 Question 1: How should a user agent indicate that it supports
 transparent content negotiation?

  A: By sending the header field `Negotiate:'
  B: By sending the header field `Negotiate: transparent'

Result: 3 times B.

 Question 2: If B were used, would you prefer shorter keywords which
 use less bytes, for example `Negotiate: tcn'?

Result: one `Yes', one `Don't care', one `Don't know'.

In view of these results, the next version of the conneg draft will
use `Negotiate: tcn' to indicate support for transparent content
negotiation.  If you can think of something shorter than `Negotiate:
tcn', please let me know.

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 13:50:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC