- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:04:25 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com writes: >This approach defeats the purpose of content negotiation, which is >based on contextual issues outside the scope of the link itself, >and unknown by the author. I.e., if your browser supports SVG, >you get an SVG image. If it supports only GIF, you get GIF, etc. >and such knowledge cannot be known before hand and varies >from client to client. That is one purpose, but it is hardly the only application for the practice. Such knowledge can be known beforehand in some situations and can be dealt with from the client in other situations. >(If someone *wants* to specify the precise encoding, language, >revision, etc. they can, but it makes the link fragile) If they take no further steps to make the link robust, then certainly. This work does not, however, take place in a vacuum, and the current approach of ignoring content negotiation in specifications creates its own fragilities. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 10:03:40 UTC