W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:24:24 +0200
Message-ID: <6d282afce1d51732a6d9cdcfdcac0a8a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Le Dim 8 avril 2012 22:01, Poul-Henning Kamp a écrit :
> In message <34f9f0e4f85753187ecbb46f42609f0d.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>,
> "Nicol
> as Mailhot" writes:
>>
>>Le Dim 8 avril 2012 14:50, Adrien W. de Croy a écrit :
>>
>>>>>3. a way to signal the web client a request is being processed (there is
>>>>> no
>>>>>way a multi-GB iso is going to pass through the anti-malware system
>>>>>instantaneously, and users will press retry if the download bar does not
>>>>> move
>>>>>after a few seconds)
>>
>>>>That sounds like serious scope-creep to me.
>>
>>Unfortunately a single user that pressed refresh half a dozen times because
>>he's not seeing progress on its multi-GB file can consume as much in a few
>>minutes as a normal user would over weeks.
>
> Ohh, I don't dispute that.  I just don't see the solution being adding
> a userinterface on top of HTTP...

Then if the protocol does not permit signaling progress, what the solution
would be? (educating users does not work, they've been brainwashed to refresh
at the slightest pause)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 20:24:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT