- From: Moore, Jonathan (CIM) <Jonathan_Moore@Comcast.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:46:52 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:36 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > - brought Preference-Applied back > > This needs to be discussed. I'm very uneasy about turning this into Yet Another HTTP Negotiation Mechanism. Can you explain your unease? It seems like all the pre-existing server-side negotiation mechanisms (Accept, Accept-Language, etc.) all basically have an "express your desire but check the response anyway" semantic. For example, servers are explicitly not required to send a 406 if they can't honor an Accept header. However, there are (optional) protocol-level means that servers can use to provide more context to clients--Content-Language being a good example. Therefore, in some sense, they are all client "preferences" one way or another. Perhaps we're just defining "the last negotiation mechanism you'll ever need"? Or are you suggesting server-side negotiation was a Bad Idea, and hence we shouldn't be pursuing other means for it? Curiously yours, Jon
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 11:47:41 UTC