Dear all,
 
My (personal) personal gut feeling is that the IETF definition and the conneg definition don't have to match exactly. They might not even have to match at all. The raison-d'être of the conneg doc is to give guidance on how to implement the RFC including advice on possible fall-back mechanisms (e.g. QSA). To me that means that in order to keep the semantics of the Accept-Profile/Content-Profile headers, the definition in the conneg doc MUST NOT be broader than the one we use in the RFC, otherwise it would be unclear if it's allowed to use the header pair for any kind of profile.
 
Ruben, any views on that?
 
Best,
 
Lars
 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2019 um 20:02 Uhr
Von: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
An: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Betreff: Coordination of Conneg and IETF
All,

One of the questions that we have is whether we need to consider the
IETF work on content negotiation by profile as we define profile, and
whether those two documents need to use the same definition of
"profile". I'm hoping that Lars can weigh in, as the person with
experience in both efforts.

Lars? Over to you.

Thanks,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
skype: kcoylenet