Summary of opinions on Negotiate header

• From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
• Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:40:21 +0200 (MET DST)
• To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
• Message-Id: <199609242040.WAA10534@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>

I got three responses to my earlier call for opinions.  Here are the
results:

 Question 1: How should a user agent indicate that it supports
 transparent content negotiation?

  A: By sending the header field `Negotiate:'
  B: By sending the header field `Negotiate: transparent'

Result: 3 times B.

 Question 2: If B were used, would you prefer shorter keywords which
 use less bytes, for example `Negotiate: tcn'?

Result: one `Yes', one `Don't care', one `Don't know'.

In view of these results, the next version of the conneg draft will
use `Negotiate: tcn' to indicate support for transparent content
negotiation.  If you can think of something shorter than `Negotiate:
tcn', please let me know.

Koen.

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 13:50:39 UTC