Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wordsmith future guidance on reactive negotiation #975

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 10, 2021

Conversation

kaduk
Copy link
Contributor

@kaduk kaduk commented Sep 9, 2021

It may or may not be useful to have an HTTP extension in order to
perform reactive negotiation -- one possible approach that does not
require an extension would be policy in the user-agent.

In the spirit of "less is more", and to not overly constrain our
forward-looking statement, just remove the phrase "as an extension".

(inspired by follow-up discussions on #914)

It may or may not be useful to have an HTTP extension in order to
perform reactive negotiation -- one possible approach that does not
require an extension would be policy in the user-agent.

In the spirit of "less is more", and to not overly constrain our
forward-looking statement, just remove the phrase "as an extension".
Copy link
Member

@royfielding royfielding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I almost made the same edit earlier.

@royfielding royfielding merged commit 89fb64e into httpwg:master Sep 10, 2021
reschke added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants