- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:58:15 +0100
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Richard P King <rpk@us.ibm.com>
Jim, Exactly. We can all agree on this. So given that fact, and the fact that people do want to reliably transfer hypertext across unreliable, non-transparent and intermittently connected networks, what should we do? Brian Jim Gettys wrote: > > This is exactly correct, in my experience. > > I'd add that it also helps that most people are unaware how truly > ugly HTTP actually is... > - Jim > > > > > > > Most people who want to use HTTP aren't attracted to its state > > > model. They're attracted to HTTP because it runs over port 80, works > > > through firewalls (usually), seems to have security (which may or > > > may not be appropriate for the user's particular purpose), can be > > > plugged into an existing server, and/or (mostly) because they are > > > (somewhat) familiar and comfortable with it. They (often incorrectly) > > > assume that by simply using HTTP they can avoid worrying about protocol > > > design issues. > > > > > > Keith > > > > > -- > Jim Gettys > Cambridge Research Laboratory > Compaq Computer Corporation > jg@pa.dec.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 04:59:15 UTC