W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Summary of STATUS100 issue

From: <rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:59:09 EST
Message-Id: <199707171959.PAA20718@rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
** Reply to note from koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:45:24 +0200 (MET DST)
>   
[...]
>   
> Urgl.  I get the feeling that 100 is taking far too much of our scarce
> time, given that it is in no way central to basic HTTP operation.  I
> also have the feeling that is taking so much time because it had loads
> of *unnecessary complexity* from the start.
>   
> I think we are trying to untangle a knot which should be cut instead.
>   
> I move that we either simplify the thing, or remove it from the spec
> entirely.  We already know that 100 processing is a pain to implement
> in servers and clients, and I think it is time to question whether we
> cannot achieve the same goals in a much simpler way.
>   
I agree. The KISS principle applies.

[...]
>   
> To meet (1) above, we could define a new method by which the client
> can ask the server if an X request with the following headers would be
> allowed.  Such a request could look like:
>   
> ASK-IF-ALLOWED /a/page HTTP/1.1
> Is-method-allowed: PUT
> Authorization: ......
>  etc. 
>   
>   
> I don't think things need to be more complicated than that.
Why not OPTIONS?

>   
> Koen.
>   
> 
 

Richard L. Gray
chocolate - the One True food group
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 13:57:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:48 EDT