W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: I-D Action:draft-snell-http-prefer-03.txt

From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:14:11 -0400
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5901086EE0C2B0C990D24ED8@cyrus.local>
Hi Poul-Henning,

--On March 29, 2011 10:12:34 AM +0000 Poul-Henning Kamp 
<phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>> The goal seems to be to ask for the server's result of a PUT or POST
>> to be returned as part of the same action instead of requiring the
>> client to make an additional GET request.
> And standardizing a header to kindly request but not demand this,
> would help how ?
> Is the hope that all browsers will send this by default ?

Browsers are not the only HTTP clients around.

In the CalDAV (RFC4791) world we do have servers immediately modifying data 
PUT by clients with the requirement that clients then have to immediately 
do a GET. This happens because the server typically does take immediate 
action to do some form of scheduling - that may simply be to add an 
indicator to the data that a scheduling operation is pending (and that 
operation then happens asynchronously). Avoiding the extra roundtrip would 
be beneficial in this case particularly as mobile devices make use of this 

That said, I agree with Roy that adding clarifying text about appropriate 
use cases makes sense.

Cyrus Daboo
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 03:14:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:56 UTC