W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:34:50 -0400
Message-ID: <b549193f0804050734uc380641rde2fe60eb15c5c28@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bill de hOra" <bill@dehora.net>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Brian McBarron" <bpm@google.com>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

>  Anyway, I think the resumption case be dealt with straightforwardly without
> any extensions to http.

We agree completely. Our proposal does not involve extensions to HTTP,
but rather formalizing and standardizing the HTTP semantics involved
in resumption.

Obviously our current proposal uses Expects where it shouldn't, but
exactly the same behavior can be obtained using other headers (off the
top of my head something like If-Match for the ETag, Content-Range for
the byte range, and Pragma: resmue to flag resume requests, though
we'll come up with a formal proposal next week).

Further, regarding your mobile case, we are actively developing Google
Gears modules to support two different kinds of upload resumption:

  - <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ContentRangePostProposal>
  - <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal>
(previously referenced in this thread)

Both solutions, along with Google Gears itself, are being designed in
a cross-platform, cross-browser manner, explicitly targeting mobile
devices (<http://code.google.com/apis/gears/mobile.html>).

We feel strongly that there is an important gap to fill, both from a
practical and a standardization perspective, with respect to resumable
uploads, and we would be very excited about collaborating with other
interested parties as part of this process.

Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 14:35:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC