- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:57:04 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, sean@mysterylights.com
Hi Graham. CCd to www-archive, not www-tag. I fear I'm not communicating very well ... > >With "Man" from RFC 2774, "Man: Content-features" means that the client > >is requiring that the Content-features header be understood. If that > >client wanted to ask that a particular media feature, say "xmlns", be > >understood, it would not be able to use 2774. > > Yes, this is true. But I don't see it as a limitation of the > Content-features: header field, but as inherent in the design goals > underlying RFC 2774. For sure, but it's not specific to RFC 2774. RFC 2616 includes at least two headers that use the same referencing capability; Vary, and Connection. It's really inherrent to 2616 IMO (or perhaps 822), because header syntax treats header content as opaque, so only the header names can be used as reference points for other headers. This isn't saying that Content-features isn't useful, it's just pointing out the cost of using it over using separate headers. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 08:51:53 UTC