- From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:34:37 +0300
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7/9/10 10:43 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 09/07/2010, at 3:50 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote: > > >> Right - for the cases you have in mind, the single bit might be wasted bytes too. >> > Not really. Patching Squid (etc.) to change policy based upon the presence of a header isn't a big deal, and when it's deployed as an accelerator, the single bit could be quite valuable. > if I understood correctly Mark, you are to suggesting that just having an header would be enough and much easier to implement for the intermediaries, isn't it? if so I don't see much difference in defining an header containing a value and let the intermediate decide if consider or not the value and then use it as a single bit! /Sal > >> However, in the context of XmlHTTPRequest, might we not consider the browser to be an intermediary? Would the same constraints apply there? >> > Are you suggesting that the browser rewrite headers before handing them to the HTTP API? That's likely to cause a fair amount of confusion... Why not just expose the connection timeout of the browser as an API extension? > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Salvatore Loreto www.sloreto.com
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 10:35:37 UTC