On 27 feb 2015, at 21:37, Nico Williams <nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail