Re: Comment on draft-arnold-scmp-02.txt [repost 2 of 2]

[Reposting 2 of 2, from a previous discussion]


At 14:40 10/05/99 +0000, John Stracke wrote:

>> >> >7.2.1: since serialization is probably an important feature (without
it,
>> >> >you can't do pipelining), why not specify it? It'd be pretty easy:
>>
>> I think that lumbering all implementations with this requirement is not
>> necessarily helpful.
>
>Mmm, perhaps not.  However, it would at least be something to specify as
MAY: if
>you want to do serialization, here's how.

That seems reasonable.

>> I would see serialization of multiple operations within a single
>> request/response as related to payload semantics rather than protocol
>> semantics.
>
>Mmm, the two can overlap.  MIME doesn't specify much in the way of
payloads, but
>it does specify multipart.

OK, I take your point.  I think there's a grey area here, but MIME
structures to represent serialization seems reasonable (as long as it's
done in a way that doesn't overload some existing usage -- I think more
than just multipart/mixed would be needed).

>> The whole issue of error text is rather vague:  I'd suggest that any text
>> should use UTF-8 charset (so presentation is not a problem),
>
>Should it be possible to specify a language, perhaps with a Content-Language:
>header?

That's another approach;  I would defer to those with more experience of
dealing with this issue.  My preference is to try and avoid the problem by
not using "languaged" text to convey (possibly) important protocol
information.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email protected])