- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:00:20 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Graham Klyne: > > >At 08:15 PM 7/4/97 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote: [...] >>In other types of negotiation, where two machines are involved, a >>symmetric metadata format may be a nice win, but not so in TCN. In >>TCN, it would just add to the complexity of defining the choice >>process. > >I'm not convinced. But I can see I must produce some more concrete >evidence for my view -- I'll think about it (it may take a while). (See >also later comments.) [...] >Question: if I could offer (a) a generic framework and metadata format, >and (b) indicate how these might be subsetted to current HTTP/TCN >capabilities, would you consider that this would address your >concerns? One of my concerns is that symmetric mechanisms would add complexity to HTTP negotiation, so if your (b) is simple enough, this concern would be addressed. However, another concern is that any new HTTP negotiation framework must not shift paradigms more than is needed. Especially for the simple cases, the metadata format must stay as close as possible to the way the target metadata authors think about negotiation. And these target authors are not programmers who write server-side rendering engines, but content authors who may not have any knowledge of programming or mathematical logic. This puts some limitations to the amount of complexity the protocol can shift to the metadata author. >(NOTE: I am NOT proposing to re-design TCN or any part of HTTP!) > >GK. Koen.
Received on Monday, 14 July 1997 11:02:42 UTC