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

RE: Opinion on Notify Request Header

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 00:51:21 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-961104085121Z-11912@INET-01-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Is there a HTTP 1.2 group? I thought the HTTP group's charter ran out
with 1.1.
		Yaron

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
>Sent:	Monday, November 04, 1996 12:43 AM
>To:	Yaron Goland
>Cc:	ejw@ics.uci.edu; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>Subject:	Re: Opinion on Notify Request Header
>
>Oh, so it's a versioning issue, not a client capability issue. That
>makes sense. Status might be signalled by a
>
>    102 Processing
>
>status code, probably with an entity body which contains the actual
>status. This would signal the client that the server is still working
>on the request and not to time out.
>
>We could add a new request header which indicates a client's
>willingness to accept such a status code, or else just bundle it in
>with HTTP/1.2
>	  GET uri HTTP/1.2
>
>would be the signal that '102 processing' responses are acceptable.
>
>Right?
>
>Larry
>
Received on Monday, 4 November 1996 03:51:21 GMT

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