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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:02:03 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199609261302.PAA25864@wsooti22.win.tue.nl>
To: snowhare@netimages.com
Cc: fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU, rsalz@osf.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1636
Benjamin Franz:
>By the way, a benefit of the alternate proposal for adding a new MIME type
>of 'n/t' instead of a new 'Negotiate' header that no one has mentioned is
>that it could be used *today* with the Apache 1.1.1 server's content
>negotiation and .asis or .meta modules.

The 'Negotiate' header can also be used *today* with a simple CGI
script. I have such a script running under
http://gewis.win.tue.nl/conneg-bin/stats.  I'm not an expert on the
internal apache module interfaces, but from what I have read, adding
something which uses Negotiate is relatively simple.

While most of this discussion boils down to a question of taste, there
*is* a real technical argument against stuffing `n/t' into the Accept
header: saying `Vary: Accept, Accept-Language' in stead of `Vary:
Negotiate, Accept-Language' will greatly reduce the efficiency of Vary
header based caching.

>I think that having a new MIME type 'n/t' is really the way to go rather
>than a 'Negotiate:' (unimplemented by anyone yet) header. 

I have both implemented a script that looks for the Negotiate header,
and a user agent that sends it.  See

>Benjamin Franz

Received on Thursday, 26 September 1996 06:30:11 UTC

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