Alan Robertson <alanr@bell-labs.com> wrote: > Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch> wrote: > > > I don't see any reason to support both forms of access (Why have two ways > > of doing something when there is no advantage of the second method over > > the first) [ stuff omitted...] > Such a gateway could be defined easily strictly in terms of such HTTP > semantics as we are defining elsewhere. Again, the issue for the spec is: > Is it worthwhile? > Will anyone implement it? > Would anyone use it? > What is it "just the right approach" for? > > If it's worthwhile, then the questions about how it might be used come up. > Things like: What kind of management entity is going to be looking at these > results? What do they need to do their job?, etc. I erred in saying "strictly in terms of HTTP semantics". There is one significant difference between the email and HTTP worlds that matters here, and that is authentication. There are a number of differences between the two environments that would seem to imply there could be more difficulty than my previous note had indicated. -- Alan Robertson alanr@bell-labs.comReceived on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 10:52:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT