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

Re: Summary of opinions on Negotiate header

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:33:46 -0500 (CDT)
To: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960926083219.1799B-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1637
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Benjamin Franz wrote:

> Anyone else *REALLY* peeved at this 'abbreviate until meaningless'
> approach to header design? You might as well go whole hog - why just save
> two bytes from the *value* of the when you can save 8 from the *name* of
> the header? Just call it 'N: t'. :/ If you are *SERIOUS* about saving
> bytes in the header - change to a machine readable format. But don't play
> this game of 'this is a human readable format so we will give it a
> meaningful name and then chop so many letters out that the meaning is
> lost'. The first rule of abbreviation for humans is to remove as many
> letters as possible without losing the meaning *and no more*. 

I agree completely.  Let's have a human readable format or a binary format,
but not the worst of both worlds.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Thursday, 26 September 1996 06:41:27 UTC

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