- From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 22:25:45 -0800 (PST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > [## 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. Ned
Received on Sunday, 25 February 1996 22:29:29 UTC