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

Re: Summary of opinions on Negotiate header

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:38:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199609252038.WAA01637@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1624
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.

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 1996 13:47:35 UTC

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