> On 27 feb 2015, at 21:37, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 08:07:25AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> My feedback to Andrew when he presented this to me was that: >> >> - In general I am nervous of moving HTTP header attributes into the >> DNS, as it might create inconsistencies when for example the data in >> DNS do not match what is in the HTTP header, and we already have a >> content-negotiation mechanism in HTTP > > If anything, it may not provide the optimization that's desired. (Any > numbers?) Ok, to go back in history, this is why I originally did believe more in Gopher than Web... :-) I though a proper negotiation would be to know already in the source of a referral what kind of data the target was. This was how Gopher worked, but Web was different. The link was (is) neutral and the negotiation happens at the target. I did tell this to Tim, just like my view that HTML would have more TeX features like the ability to have "boxes" like various fills. He ignored me -- and I am happy for that!!!! That story, early 1990's, gave me the lesson that the "correct" solutions do not always win. The "best" solution wins. :-) And this is the reason I am nervous over "gopher like features" in DNS. Even though I think it is good...I think it will loose... Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail