- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:14:08 +1000
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81 On 22/06/2007, at 4:54 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > > 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/ > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 06:14:36 UTC