Re: Strawman proposal for Representation header

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 9:50 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > My own take is that this approach is actually the reverse of what we
> > actually want.
>
> Going XML->MIME is easier, because there are questions of
> canonicalizing MIME headers (e.g., multiple header folding w/ commas,
> multiple-line headers, etc.). See all of RFC2822 Section 2.2.

Well, UC2 requires more or less to go MIME->XML as well, and all the fun
of headers continuation, implicit LWS, implementation that are not
accepting reformatting of some headers will surface because of this use
case.

Also, in the case of UC2 and HTTP resources, how will we handle the
content negotiation case if the sender embeds a format that the receiver
can't understand, but with a Vary header, should we require all
implementation that use this deferenciation scheme to act as fully
compliant HTTP/1.1 caches?
Thanks,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."