Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

"Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net> Wed, 13 February 2013 15:11 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 6F25021F869B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yoBbJoXWGYG0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440C321F8694 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U5dxr-0001Sc-BB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:09:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:09:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U5dxr-0001Sc-BB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eric@bisonsystems.net>) id 1U5dxb-0001Pc-Ty for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:09:23 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eric@bisonsystems.net>) id 1U5dxU-000539-1O for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:09:23 +0000
Received: from WINBISON (unknown [65.117.211.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3A38509BB; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:08:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:08:45 -0700
From: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
In-Reply-To: <6E9D9BB9-A5F5-417A-A640-AF03AFCC6496@gbiv.com>
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>
Organization: Bison Systems Corporation
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=eric@bisonsystems.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.117, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U5dxU-000539-1O 0d4ec8332f2ac25bd9643f2dc5edda27
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16593
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>

"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