- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:56:53 -0500 (EST)
- To: GK@NineByNine.org (Graham Klyne)
- Cc: sean@mysterylights.com (Sean B. Palmer), www-tag@w3.org
Graham, > Rather than defining new header field names, an alternative could be to > define media feature tags for use with the already-defined Content-features > [1] header. Perhaps Repr-Type could used a feature tag, but Resource-Type cannot because it is not an attribute of the content, it is an attribute of the resource that the URI identifies. It's my understanding that Content-Features, as with other Content-* headers, describes resource representations, not the resources themselves. Also, a reason to be careful of feature tags is that they circumvent reification in HTTP header assertions. For example, if I wanted to say that the negotiated content varied by some attribute that was expressed as a feature tag rather than as an HTTP header, I cannot use the HTTP Vary header. Ditto for Connection, Man, Opt, or any other header with headers as a subject. Not that this is a concern for this draft, just pointing out the potential downside. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 14:51:50 UTC