- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:38:22 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote: > > It has been a bad design trade-off ever since the very > brief period in 1993-94 when folks didn't know which image format > would be usable on all UAs and there was no CSS or javascript to allow > for client-side adaptation. > Well, that explains it! That's when I got my start as a Web developer, I think the rest of my career may be summed up as trying to un-learn those bad habits... > > There are numerous ways to accomplish the same feature of HTTP > content negotiation without the horrific bandwidth waste and > privacy exposure of proactive negotiation. The caching impact of > proactive negotiation is far worse than the one extra round trip > per site for reactive negotiation, and even that round-trip isn't > necessary in formats that support client-side adaptation. > Defining protocol elements for reactive negotiation is one > alternative. Encouraging the use of media types with inherent content > selection/alternative abilities is another. > Responsive design (or progressive refinement) is probably the most > common example in practice today. > OK, thanks for elaborating. -Eric
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 01:38:59 UTC