- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:49:46 -0700
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "henrik@henriknordstrom.net" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "mnot@pobox.com" <mnot@pobox.com>
My original post was overstated. Content Negotiation works fine
for some purposes, but doesn't work as originally envisioned,
and so the text could be improved editorially.
-----Original Message-----
From: httpbis [mailto:trac@tools.ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:11 AM
To: LMM@acm.org; henrik@henriknordstrom.net; mnot@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [httpbis] #81: Content Negotiation for media types
#81: Content Negotiation for media types
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: mnot@pobox.com | Owner: LMM@acm.org
Type: design | Status: new
Priority: | Milestone: unassigned
Component: p3-payload | Version: 00-draft
Severity: | Resolution:
Keywords: | Origin: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-April/001707.html
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment(by henrik@henriknordstrom.net):
I disagree that content negotiation does not work in general. Sure it has
limitations when it comes to wide range properties like Content-Type
negotiation, but if one considers that clients in most cases MAY retry the
request with a different Accept setting if the result they got the first
time wasn't acceptable it still works out quite well even for Accept
/Content-Encoding. Remember that Accept can include negative selectors
saying "I do NOT want this" (q=0) as well as positive ones of varying
degrees (q>0).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/81#comment:4>
httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 15:50:33 UTC