W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: HTTP 1.1 As Universal Transport?

From: <hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 12:06:36 -0400
Message-Id: <9605161606.AA27985@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
To: Anders Rundgren <etoile@algonet.se>
Cc: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/506

>But does this makes it possible for a server to send events to
>a client. I think not.
>Very sad.

A server initiating a communication with a client is rightly outside the model. 
The only distinction between clients and servers in client-server architectures 
is that a client initiates while a server passively accepts. Thus if a "server" 
starts initiating actions it isn't acting as a server, its acting as something 
else and to the recipient of the communication it looks like a client.

The idea pushed about two years ago was to build in a server into the browsers 
which could then be used to accept notification. I still think this is the best 
route to go. It means writing no new specifications.

The route of writing some mux layer which allows a server to send asynchronous 
messages to the client once a communication has been established appears to be 
prommising but it is probably best persued in the context of http-ng and not in 
the context of rfc-822 style http. This is not the time for that discussion. 

Received on Thursday, 16 May 1996 09:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC