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

Re: Summary of opinions on Negotiate header

From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:20:10 +0200
Message-Id: <199609261420.QAA03906@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1639
Benjamin Franz answers to Roy T. Fielding :

% > > 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.
% > 
% > I would prefer `Negotiate: t' myself, since the 'cn' serves no useful
% > purpose given the context.  I was thinking of using `Negotiate: a'
% > for pure agent-driven negotiation (without the proxy mumbo jumbo).
% Anyone else *REALLY* peeved at this 'abbreviate until meaningless'
% approach to header design? 

I personally don't like at all "tcn" and prefer "transparent" or
"transp" (if an abbreviation has to be made). Header should be 
understandable as much as possible.

Otherwise, let's remain with "Negotiate: t" which is as meaningless as
"tcn", but shorter!

Received on Thursday, 26 September 1996 07:33:00 UTC

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