Subject: RE: FWD: Re: Framework for capabilities

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:15:43 +0100

At 18:03 20/10/98 -0400, Reynolds Franklin NRC/Boston wrote:
[...]
>I don't think we are wedded to the notion of a "tables of tables". The
>goal was to keep things simple. We can make accomodations if it
>would help us take advantage of some other portion of the CONNEG
>work. For instance, it would be nice if we could use the CONNEG  rules
>for matching content attributes to user preferences.

As far as I can tell, the intent behind the "table of tables" (or "set of
tables") is fairly well in line with the intent of 'conneg' feature
collections.

#g

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Koen Holtman)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:42:28 +0200 (MET DST)

>tables") is fairly well in line with the intent of 'conneg' feature

I just read both drafts, and I tend to agree with this observation: the
'table of tables' approach can be seen as a compact way of encoding a
(part of) a feature collection.

To add some more references for the CC/PP draft: The CONNEG work can be
seen as a generalisation and continuation of previous work on the
'transparent content negotiation' (TCN) mechanism which is targeted at
web content under HTTP only (See rfc2295 and rfc2296, and
http://gewis.win.tue.nl/~koen/conneg/ for related and historical
info).  The scope of CONNEG goes beyond the web and HTTP.  rfc229[56]
may be interesting reading for the CC/PP group because they show
examples of all things which need to go into a complete negotiation
system.

Koen.