W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1996

RE: POST vs. separate methods

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:42:40 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-961029234240Z-2171@INET-03-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "'gjw@wnetc.com'" <gjw@wnetc.com>
Cc: "'ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I think that is great idea but is this the group to propose it? We should 
raise flags with other groups but I think we need to keep the RFC tightly 
focused on distributed authoring and versioning.
			Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, October 29, 1996 7:53 AM
To:	gjw@wnetc.com
Cc:	ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject:	Re: POST vs. separate methods

I was thinking more of a return header from ANY request that
identified a set of other URLs whose cache entries should be marked
stale. So, if you POST a new entry to

       http://host.dom/container

you might get back a return header that it updated:

	http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-date
	http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-author

or (even)
	http://host.dom/container/3q96/*

This puts the computational burden on the update method rather than
retrieval, and is predicated on an assumption that reads happen far
more frequently than writes.

Larry
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 1996 18:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:41 GMT