- From: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:24:15 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: sh@defuze.org, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sylvain Hellegouarch schrieb: >> Both are fair points. I am still not convinced by the way >> Entity-Tranform >> is specified though. It seems over complicated. Why not defining the > > Well, that's why I was submitting a draft -- feedback is needed. I > realize that Entity-Transform currently may violate the KISS principle, > maybe I should go back to it's minimal form of...: > > Entity-Transform = "Entity-Transform" ":" 1#transform-info > transform-info = "identity" | "unspecified" +1 > > ...and leave everything else to future specs. > >> Entity-Transform header has follow: >> >> Entity-Transform = "Entity-Transform" ":" media-type >> >> Thus taking benefit from the existing IANA registration for what you >> call >> token in your proposal of the header. At least in that case the >> user-agent >> would know precisely how the server has transformed the request entity >> and >> the impact of that extension would be minimum. > > Reusing media types sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure how this > is going to work. Could you give examples for some of the use cases > mentioned in the document (XML Infoset preserved, HTML filtering, SVN > keyword substitution, AtomPub...)? Fair point. I had not thought this through. In that case I think your above proposal is a good one. - Sylvain
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 07:24:31 UTC