- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:45:01 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Yaron Goland: >So Spake Koen: >>We cannot have one negotiation mechanism. There are two main reasons >>why we will have more than one: > >>- we do not know enough about requirements to be able to make a >> final, unified mechanism >> >> - the big browser implementers are not interested in having a >> unified scripting API > >I believe your first point misses the mark. >From the rest of this thread, I gather that your opinion is that client-side scripting is the final, unified negotiation mechanism. Like Ted Hardie, I disagree: some user agents this workgroup wants to support won't be capable of doing active content. A combination of TCN and active content will give the service author a better coverage. >As for your second point, might I respectfully suggest that it is >inappropriate to make such bold statements when you are not in full >possession of the facts. If I were in full possession of the facts, I would be playing the stock market in stead of making bold statements. I get my version of the facts from the media, and by talking to people who follow scripting more closer than I do. Of course, you could argue that I am reading the wrong newspapers. But they don't call it the browser wars for nothing. > Yaron Koen.
Received on Saturday, 7 June 1997 05:52:25 UTC