Re: feature negotiation

> > [## Question to be resolved: Should a rudimentary feature negotiation
> > facilities that work for 90% of the cases be added as a stopgap??  I
> > wonder if we won't be doing the web community a disservice if we delay
> > a 90% solution in order to construct a 99% solution for HTTP 1.2.
> > After all, most negotiation that happens now is on tables vs. no
> > tables, not on language or MIME type.
> > ##]

> I think we should just put this as a separate issue.

> Here's a strawman proposal:

> *   request that IANA extend media type registrations to allow
>     registration of feature names for each media type.
>     90% solution says: feature names are atomic, contain
>     only alphanumeric characters, feature registration
>     for an Internet Media Type requires same documentation
>     rules as for Media Type but no waiting period (since
>     there are no additional security considerations).
I think this is an excellent idea. I would modify the proposal somewhat
to have a generic set of features that may or may not be applicable to
a given type. Each type definition would then list the features that apply
to it.


Received on Sunday, 25 February 1996 22:29:29 UTC