- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:59:02 -0800
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Well, considering that the http/2 discussion has already touched on the introduction of stateful compression, a potential switch to binary-header values, elimination of various elements such as response status-text and the host header, and so on, a discussion of eliminating conneg wouldn't be too extreme :-) ... The one thing to consider is that it ought to be at least possible to deprecate conneg without removing it entirely. We'll need to keep the mechanism around for http/1 interop and passthrough but we can say instruct developers that conneg ought to be avoided and we can discuss and highlight the appropriate alternatives. - James On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: >> >> Regarding proactive negotiation in HTTP/2, I'll note that Waka >> strips all negotiation fields. I find the entire feature revolting, >> from every architectural perspective, and would take the opportunity >> of 2.x to remove it entirely. >> > > That's a bold statement! I'm surprised at the source -- I was under > the impression that the late binding of representation to resource was > a key feature of REST, and would therefore also be part of Waka? This > isn't the place for such a discussion, but I was hoping you'd enlighten > us as to your thinking, either on your blog or here: > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/19269 > > What is on-topic here, is whether eliminating conneg in HTTP 2 amounts > to a fundamental change to Web architecture, which exceeds the WG > charter? > > -Eric >
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:59:50 UTC