- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:54:18 -0700
- To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm willing to take a stab at writing some text if this gets on the issues list. Larry -----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:32 PM To: LMM@acm.org Cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: [RFC] HTTP Information Request In the linked message, you say: > I think we should deprecate HTTP content negotiation, if only to > make it clear to people reading the spec that it doesn't really > work that way in practice. Seems like some explanatory text, at the least, might help people understand this feature a bit better. On 22/06/2007, at 3:27 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > > This proposal seems to fall into the same trap that most proposed > HTTP extensions fall into: there's no motivation to deploy this > in clients because most servers don't support it, and no motivation > to deploy this in servers, because most clients don't support it. > > Unless you have a better story for how this will get deployed, > its mainly an academic exercise. > > Things might have been different when HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 were > being developed, but that's not the case now. > > That's the general problem. The specific problem with this > is that it's a kind of reverse content negotiation, and many > of the features you're thinking of (e.g., screen/window size, > accessibility requirements) fit into the framework of media > negotiation, and the others might, with a bit of stretching > (e.g., "timezone" as a media feature meaning "content > appropriate for someone in the named timezone", or, more > likely, locale.) In most cases, we talked about the combination > of client characteristics, capabilities and preferences, > which seems to cover almost all of your tokens. > > There's been a great deal of work in this area, most of > it not deployed (for reasons above), e.g., > > http://www.imc.org/ietf-medfree/ in IETF and > http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-ra/ > http://www.zurich.ibm.com/ucp/ > > In general, media negotiation in HTTP hasn't been successful, > see note & following discussion: > > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-April/001707.html > > Larry > -- > http://larry.masinter.net > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 06:54:40 UTC