On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 01:42:04PM -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Finally, I think there's a case to be made that this is a significant > misuse of HTTP itself, which has a pretty strong notion of > request/response on a POST (you couldn't send the header on a GET.) I don't think it's quite that strong, Noah. I believe that the 202 "Accepted" response provides the desired "out" here, by being "intentionally non-committal". I've used it myself, on occasion, for exactly the scenario described. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Friday, 12 November 2004 19:31:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT