Re: [URN] HTTP resolution protocol

Fisher Mark:

>>How about:
>>   1) We define text/uri-list as a new media type?
>>   2) We allow the Accept: header to be used to pick between returning
>>      the result as text/html or text/uri-list.
>>I think that the primary use of the lists will be for automated processing,
>>thus the new media type allows us to launch those content handlers easily.
>>Clients that don't support text/uri-list have a fallback that will allow
>>humans to pick URI if necessary. New clients of the agent variety should
>>use text/uri-list.
>Sounds OK to me.  Automated processing is important!

Hmmm.  This is starting to sound like the use of variant lists in
transparent content negotiation.  What does a `HTTP resolution
protocol' do?

By the way, it is OK for a protocol extension on top of HTTP/1.1 to
extend (i.e. be inconsistent with) the HTTP/1.1 semantics of the
Accept header.  A protocol extended server should however be careful
to avoid that responses inconsistent with HTTP/1.1 end up at plain
HTTP/1.1 clients.  This means in particular that you have to be
careful in making your responses cacheable.

>Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics


Received on Monday, 4 November 1996 15:35:29 UTC