- From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:49:03 -0800
- To: "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
- Cc: John Panzer <jpanzer@acm.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-appformats@w3.org" <public-appformats@w3.org>
+1 On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Close, Tyler J. wrote: > > I'm having trouble understanding the proposed solution. Could > someone provide an alternate explanation or a sample protocol > exchange? > > Thanks, > --Tyler > > John Panzer wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> ... >>> Problem: Some HTTP-based protocols, like AtomPub, require >> the use of a >>> large number of distinct URIs. For example, adding a tag or >> category to a >>> series of posts on a blog using AtomPub requires one >> non-GET request per >>> blog post. While this is prohibitively expensive anyway >> when done from a >>> high-latency network like GSM or EDGE, it is still somewhat >> painful to >>> require two round trips per non-GET request in cases like >> this even on >>> low-latency high-bandwidth connections, and therefore >> deserves further >>> consideration. >>> >>> Proposed Solution: The proposed solution allows one new >> optional header >>> for OPTIONS responses. The header contains a path. >>> >>> ... >>> >> This proposal effectively addresses the performance & server side >> scalability concerns I had with the cross-domain access >> control mechanism. >> >> Thanks, >> John Panzer >> Tech Lead/Manager, Google (Blogger, OpenSocial, & Friends) >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 19:49:21 UTC