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

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:49:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4881D4C7.3050805@gmx.de>
To: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
CC: google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Charles Fry wrote:
> Based on all the feedback we received on this thread, we modified our
> proposal to remove the 103 responses:
> 
>    <http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttp10RequestsProposal>
> 
> Everything remains the same at a high level, other than the fact that
> clients must pro-actively query the server to determine which bytes it
> possesses (rather than being able to rely on the 103s).
> 
> We'd love to any additional feedback that you have to offer.
> 
> thanks,
> Charles

Hi,

first of all, I find the number of options (Location or not, HTTP/1.1 or 
not, and so on) totally frightening. It seems to me the proposal would 
be much easier to understand if there'd be exactly one way to do it 
(with potential workarounds for HTTP/1.0).

You said "based on all the feedback" -- did you indeed consider what Roy 
wrote 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0082.html>)?

Some more nits:

- some of the ETags in the examples are broken

- why use POST just to obtain information? why not HEAD?

- not sure what If-Resume is good for; what does it do what If-Match 
doesn't?

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 19 July 2008 11:50:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT