Re: associating constant feature sets with URLs

Graham Klyne:
>
>At 22:39 19/01/99 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote:
>[...]
>>[...]  I believe we should not
>>develop a negotiation protocol unless we have at least one negotiation
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>(transport) protocol which needs it in mind.  When one defines a
>>negotiation (transport) protocol, it is relatively trivial to define a
>>suitable delegation protocol, if needed, along with it.
>
>I think I broadly agree with what you are saying, here and below, but...
>
>I don't have a clear understanding of what is meant by "delegation
>protocol", but I don't see it necessarily being a "negotiation protocol".

Oops!  I meant 'delegation protocol' where I wrote 'negotiation
protocol' above.  Sorry for the confusion caused.

[....]
>To stand back from these terms, I think this group should focus on
>*representation*, not *transfer*, of capability information.

I would agree with this.  It is OK with me if we talk about the
semantics of how a represention of a (partial) feature set can be
merged into another feature set, once it has been transported.

>#g

Koen.