- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Larry Masinter wrote: > > Larry, it seems that you want me to write a requirements document > > which proves that Yaron's approach is wrong. But I cannot write such > > a document, because I think Yaron's approach is right. I believe that Yaron's approach is interesting but from my perspective it is not an alternative to TCN. It isn't content negotiation at all but rather client side active content. Where I believe Yaron and I would disagree is that active content can and should ride on top of TCN as a negotiable feature(s). I believe that active content will raise cain for indexing engins as well as limited resource clients. A major site which wanted to be effectively indexed, provide a 'compelling experience' and provide reasonable support for the more limited clients would provide three variants: acp (active client page) ixp (index page) fcp (functionally challenged page) With the right request, the client should beable to retrieve the correct page on a single round trip as if TCN didn't exist. In this manner, the two mechanisms are quite symbiotic. Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 10:54:28 UTC