W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Early Hints (103)

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:10 +0000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5079650B-9BF2-430F-9244-D54A1FC6D244@lukasa.co.uk>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>

> On 22 Nov 2016, at 22:26, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote:
> However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in, your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :).

I have no immediate intent to implement, but this is only due to limitations or constraints on the clients and servers I work on. I doubt any of my clients will implement Link header following directly because it’s of limited utility in programmatic clients. However, I intend for all my clients to tolerate such headers. On the server side the server I work on most right now has no support for returning headers before body computation, but I will investigate whether there is interest in providing such support. If there is, I will implement 103.

At a higher level, I’m +1 on this idea: I think it’s a good solution that uses established protocol tools to solve a very real problem.

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 17:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 24 November 2016 17:05:50 UTC