W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1995

Re: Suggestion for HTTP 1.0

From: <Adrian.Colley@sse.ie>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 21:21:00 +0000
Message-Id: <9503232120.AA24115@terpsichore.sse.ie>
To: http-wg (will serve files for coffee) <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
In message <ab973a1d0802100484fc@[]> of Thu, 23 Mar 1995
  14:41:34 -0600, cshotton@biap.com (Chuck Shotton) wrote:

> What's more, HTTP should be considered transport independent. Relying on
> something as cheesey as twaddling the underlying protocol to do something
> that should be under conscious control between the client and server is a
> gross hack. Either build the mechanism into HTTP or live without it.
> Hacking the transport layer as a means to this end is a recipe for wreck
> and ruin the minute someone sticks this protocol on top of something
> besides TCP/IP. Remember, WWW != Unix and HTTP != TCP/IP.

Well, of course it's a cheesey hack.  But to continue the distraction for
a moment, I note that all transports of note have a flow-control element
which can be abused to implement "tentative download".  Jeff Mogul's
comments on SWS are well taken: I'd forgotten about SWS.

I still think it should be done using uri;bytes=...

Adrian.Colley@sse.ie   <g=Adrian;s=Colley;o=SSE;p=SSE;a=EIRMAIL400;c=ie>
phones:- work: +353-1-6769089; fax: +353-1-6767984; home: +353-1-6606239
employer: Software and Systems Engineering (+=disclaimer)  (Perth)->o~^\
Y!AWGMTPOAFWY? 4 lines, ok? qebas perl unix-haters kill microsoft  \@##/
Received on Thursday, 23 March 1995 13:33:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:13 UTC