- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
The difficulty I believe is in the codification of features in a way that will satisfy everybody (or mostbodies). I have two shipping products which are fairly complex interactive applications built using WWW technology. In each case I have discovered a need to know at a very detailed level how a browser implements certain specific characteristics in order for my applications to interact correctly with the user. A specific concern is how the browser handles a selection list when the HTML doesn't pre-select an option. One major browser follows the user's markup the other follows the HTML spec and defaults the first. Another 2nd tier browser ignores the selected attribute. Getting this level of detail coded is necessary but perhaps impossible to achieve. Certainly it becomes difficult to accept such detail from unknown sources since getting it wrong can have a very negative impact. I think any realistic database approach will need to incorporate chains of 'authority' and 'trust' much like security CAs do. Secondly, the coding format will need to be very flexible and easy to extend with minimal (or no) global registration required. Part of each database will need to be a description of which parameters the owner of the database certifies/tests/etc. Which were inherited from another source, etc. Merging feature coding from multiple sources is a mandatory feature. For example, I could envision an HTTP extention like the basic authentication which would challenge a new unknown browser to identify its public feature set ... those features the published acknowledged/ claimed and later the local DB support person might need to modify the feature set with additional parameters, etc. Or a server might check the unknown browser's features with a friendly cooperating server and learn the base set but still need additional details of the nature I described above. Finally there are a whole bunch of characteristics which describe an individual installation of a browser product which I believe Koen has already noted should fit well under content negotiation. To take this to the second order then, when we learn that a browser has a particular plug-in installed (via content negotiation) we may then need user agent like version identification for the plug-in so that our database of extended characteristics can be checked. I think this is an important but difficult problem set. Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 12:12:47 UTC