- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:40:52 PDT
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Larry, it seems that you want me to write a requirements document > which proves that Yaron's approach is wrong. But I cannot write such > a document, because I think Yaron's approach is right. Not at all. I just think we need a requirements document that says why we need more than what's already in HTTP/1.1. If there is no single solution that meets the requirements, then we can evaluate them independently for what sub-problem they're solving, and whether we've covered the entire requirement space. > As I said at www6, it will > be up to the service author do decide which negotiation mechanism, or > which combination of negotiation mechanisms, is appropriate for the > content at hand. An unbounded list of possible negotiation *mechanisms* is completely unacceptable, and it may not be acceptable to have more than one! If service providers can decide on different mechanisms, then it would mean that a client that wanted to interoperate with all service providers would have to implement ALL of the negotiation mechanisms. Perhaps this is another of those "it should go without saying", but interworking of clients with all servers should be a requirement of any extension to HTTP. -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 17:43:47 UTC