AW: CCPP Implementation

Hello Mark,

> Von: Butler, Mark [mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
>
> 1. HTTP-ex
> 
> Personally I would suggest you don't use CC/PP protocol using 
> HTTP-ex. The
> CC/PP protocol documents you refer to have not been through any W3C
> standardisation process and should not be regarded as 
> standards. Furthermore
> HTTP-ex is not compatible with the majority of existing web 
> servers as they
> do not support methods such as M-GET. Personally I would 
> prefer to see CC/PP
> use a protocol like the W-HTTP one in the UAProf spec that is 
> compatible
> with HTTP/1.1. 

The majority of web servers are not CC/PP or UAProf aware at all
at the moment, I think.

Nevertheless, Jigsaw supports CCPPex, whereas it does not support
W-HTTP. Of course this is no argument pro or contra future success
of HTTPex or W-HTTP. 

I don't understand why W-HTTP is more compatible with HTTP/1.1
than HTTPex? If the client sends optional extensions instead of
mandatory extensions, the server can deliver content as well,
without understanding HTTPex!? So it is up to the client to send
the correct requests...

> There has been some discussion about this before - see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Aug/0010.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Aug/0012.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Aug/0017.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Aug/0020.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Aug/0021.html

OK, I recognized that there have been some problems when using
CCPex, especially concerning the CR problem (which is mentioned
in the CCPPex spec in 5.2.2!)

My understanding is, that the main problem with CCPPex are
- the mandatory HTTPex headers
- problems with CRs, included in the XML description

Nevertheless the general "acceptance problems" of getting support
in various servers seems to exist for UAProf as well?

Best regards,
Peter Vogel
R&D, Bosch

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 13:15:46 UTC