- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:38:27 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter: > > [Koen:] >> If you can think of something shorter than `Negotiate: tcn', please >> let me know. > >How about including "tcn" (no /) in the Accept header? My original plan was to include something like that in the Accept header, but the plan failed. Early this year, I extended the 1.1 Accept header syntax to allow such non-slash keywords, but a last minute edit to 1.1 removed this possibility again. Putting "tcn" in the Accept header is now illegal according to the Accept header syntax. Putting in something like "neg/tcn" is legal, but "neg/tcn" looks ugly and reeks of namespace pollution. I would not blame anyone for shouting at us if we introduce "neg/tcn". So I defined a separate header. >It would also shorten the 'Vary:' response header. True. On the other hand, saying `Vary: Accept, Accept-Language' in stead of `Vary: Negotiate, Accept-Language' will greatly reduce the efficiency of Vary header based caching. Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 1996 13:47:35 UTC