Re objections raised in: > http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ange/archives/http-wg-archive/1012.html and > http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ange/archives/http-wg-archive/11196.html Ted Hardie added: > I think the current design risks semantic transparency in a > small number of cases to reduce round trips in an equally small number > of cases. Perhaps you meant "semantic consistency", since "transparency" applies only to things that you (look) through, such as a proxy cache. However, in none of the designs considered lack of semantic consistency: whatever the server sends, it's labelled as to what it is, and, after all, this is not an issue of cache transparency. The only question is how a server should respond to a request indicates a different indication of server length from client's expected length. Any response at all that is self-consistent actual length of the object would do. However, we remembered discussion of a number of situations where it was *most* useful for the server to return the maximum amount of information consistent with the client's request. I don't know how the wording could be changed to make this clearer, though, or if it needs to. - LarryReceived on Friday, 31 May 1996 15:40:12 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:01 EDT