Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Wed, 13 February 2013 23:06 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 6C89F21F8794 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:06:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, 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 r2e8EZdsiCQT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD0D21F85E6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U5lO1-0007et-Bw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:05:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:05:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U5lO1-0007et-Bw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1U5lNk-0006O7-4c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:04:52 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.177] helo=homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1U5lNf-0006XV-B8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:04:52 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BE7508084; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:04:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=MCVKnAGA5vygLaHYyO9lVaZgTxE=; b=VkSG50o+pgWYvJ4sxJRjCsmm1kNs Ar/X9Ys4Ch9t/dtLq5myozpRwVp/LL2zH5yePPmnLmaZVhtcu4/GissaDCqLH7ce gX4iGUSXtuIgq33uMOh2G40Q8yItOdSoBSjqfI+MgAMMll3OavB8vYN0I/8d+V/6 IL23K4IrTtOMGz8=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC9F4508072; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:04:25 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7937E7D3-8870-4189-B9EF-AE178E6CB13B@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> <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.177; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.431, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U5lNf-0006XV-B8 3a15c6d862150050cdf8e2bb40e28a19
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7937E7D3-8870-4189-B9EF-AE178E6CB13B@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16602
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>
On Feb 13, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Eric J. Bowman 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? That doesn't require proactive negotiation. Late binding is an aspect of the server choosing what to send at the time a request is received, not an indication that it needs the user agent's poorly configured Accept* headers to make that choice. It is a bad design trade-off to send a bunch of header fields on every request just to tell the server all of the possible variations of preference held by the user, particularly when there is a very small chance that any of those dimensions are applicable to the target resource. It has been a bad design trade-off ever since the very brief period in 1993-94 when folks didn't know which image format would be usable on all UAs and there was no CSS or javascript to allow for client-side adaptation. There are numerous ways to accomplish the same feature of HTTP content negotiation without the horrific bandwidth waste and privacy exposure of proactive negotiation. The caching impact of proactive negotiation is far worse than the one extra round trip per site for reactive negotiation, and even that round-trip isn't necessary in formats that support client-side adaptation. Defining protocol elements for reactive negotiation is one alternative. Encouraging the use of media types with inherent content selection/alternative abilities is another. Responsive design (or progressive refinement) is probably the most common example in practice today. And there is no question that Content-Encoding should have been replaced by transfer encodings long ago. These are jumps in progress that should be made when developers are deploying a new protocol. > 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? Proactive conneg is an optional feature of HTTP. ....Roy
- #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalu… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Nicholas Shanks
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Nico Williams
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… James M Snell
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Nicholas Shanks
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… James M Snell
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Nicholas Shanks
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Eric J. Bowman
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… James M Snell
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Martin Thomson
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Eric J. Bowman
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Eric J. Bowman
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Nicholas Shanks
- Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical q… Julian Reschke