- From: <hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 18:53:21 -0400
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Transparent content negotiation does away with this limitation, and >feature negotiation exploits the absence of this limitation to the >fullest extent, yielding a framework which allows an open, >evolutionary approach to the problem of creating a shared language in >which to express capabilities and preferences. Agreed that these are all related I think we have to get the concept space right before we try to compress everything into one unified scheme. One reason why I was skeptical of PEP was its "all encompassing" nature which never quite appeared to be grounded. I think that there is a role for some king of multi-circuit exchange protocol. I think that needs to be more general than simply content type or even feature negotiation. I am currently looking at assertion exchange based on common reference terms which are essentially pure URNs except much of the baggage associate with URNs has to be lost so I'm using a new name. I think we need to kick the requirements space arround a bit, get a feel for the constraints on implementation and then look at architecture again. Phill
Received on Saturday, 10 August 1996 15:48:21 UTC