Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2013 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E486F21F88A9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:01:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UmAU1Fn9LWAP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5209221F88A8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U5ekY-0004Rb-3U for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:59:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:59:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U5ekY-0004Rb-3U@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1U5ekQ-0004Qm-9T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:59:50 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1U5ekP-0004nt-99 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:59:50 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so1437540oag.16 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:59:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=YnXohsCiUWts7p1qRAS2dZLtVcSI2LpveK8NkHnCouU=; b=J6asSAZp4XrCJeD4M1voAbrbBh6fjKZw/Cr7zIL7kxInRDKJshJZO1YJtojqDqTCgb 3N02QKl9CTtFA3ZeJoYEHoPzD/1T2TQcxGwVUpkR70kqZ5SaJFeuHkYcRuzGlMouwyxc be7au0hpinXwuiH1sZVrVYREZN7BXYeHCY0vZ7TTDe3A28WEUg9HClrmNpxcr++1u1D4 Auu3OwuS55xMhlTPe4EAig5I2jIGXOyAnGtG3KInNR0Wx09z4PKieBpre7R6DuaEC4vN giPRq5bzn8lRpopXzyYGcVMUxlzzgGP6+K2TNZTf2eA64uDRvCSBI2L320JVP8mVtrrM xoCQ==
X-Received: by 10.60.23.130 with SMTP id m2mr16753786oef.46.1360771163060; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:59:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.23.193 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de> <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net> <F4C2A095-50C7-451B-9AFF-A200592CCB4D@gbiv.com> <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net> <6E9D9BB9-A5F5-417A-A640-AF03AFCC6496@gbiv.com> <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:59:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbea6L8D5E6pPTUt4LJDKH+mNAi1kRx4UJ=Jfs3X6rAHMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.760, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U5ekP-0004nt-99 1a4df0a0d95090d991abb3a26a16ca97
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbea6L8D5E6pPTUt4LJDKH+mNAi1kRx4UJ=Jfs3X6rAHMw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16594
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Well, considering that the http/2 discussion has already touched on
the introduction of stateful compression, a potential switch to
binary-header values, elimination of various elements such as response
status-text and the host header, and so on, a discussion of
eliminating conneg wouldn't be too extreme :-) ... The one thing to
consider is that it ought to be at least possible to deprecate conneg
without removing it entirely. We'll need to keep the mechanism around
for http/1 interop and passthrough but we can say instruct developers
that conneg ought to be avoided and we can discuss and highlight the
appropriate alternatives.

- James

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>>
>> Regarding proactive negotiation in HTTP/2, I'll note that Waka
>> strips all negotiation fields.  I find the entire feature revolting,
>> from every architectural perspective, and would take the opportunity
>> of 2.x to remove it entirely.
>>
>
> That's a bold statement!  I'm surprised at the source --  I was under
> the impression that the late binding of representation to resource was
> a key feature of REST, and would therefore also be part of Waka?  This
> isn't the place for such a discussion, but I was hoping you'd enlighten
> us as to your thinking, either on your blog or here:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/19269
>
> What is on-topic here, is whether eliminating conneg in HTTP 2 amounts
> to a fundamental change to Web architecture, which exceeds the WG
> charter?
>
> -Eric
>