Re: New content negotiation draft available

Mark,

On at least one of the revisions of the "Alternates"draft,
the full URL syntax was made mandatory.  I believe that
that syntax continues to be the consensus of the conneg list.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie
					NASA NIC
					
> 2. The list of alternates in an "Alternates:" header currently uses the
> URI of documents for identification. It seems that there might be some
> advantages to using the URL of the document instead, e.g. the example in
> Section 4.3:
> 
> >Alternates: {"paper.1" 0.9 {type text/html} {language en}},
> >                 {"paper.2" 0.7 {type text/html} {language fr}},
> >                 {"paper.3" 1.0 {type application/postscript}
> 
> becomes:
> 
> >Alternates: {"http://x.org/paper.1" 0.9 {type text/html} {language en}},
> >                 {"http://x.org/paper.2" 0.7 {type text/html} {language
> fr}},
> >                 {"http://x.org/paper.3" 1.0 {type
> application/postscript}
> 
> Using URLs instead of URIs has the significant advantage that it provides
> a simple mechanism for pointing clients to mirror locations that replicate
> the same content. For example, the Internet Movie Database could have an
> "Alternates:" header like:
> 
> Alternates: {"http://www.imdb.com/" 1.0 {type text/html} {language en}},
>                  {"http://uk.imdb.com/" 0.7 {type text/html} {language
> en}},
>                  {"http://italy.imdb.com/" 0.7 {type text/html} {language
> it}}
> 
>