W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-ext@w3.org > January to March 1998

mandatory / extensions / options

From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:30:37 -0800
Message-ID: <8B57882C41A0D1118F7100805F9F68B5CB8B41@red-msg-45.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ietf-http-ext@w3.org'" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
I dont see it as a problem to move forward with mandatory last call.

I do think we need to have a set of requirements or goals for
what we expect for extensions mechs for HTTP.

Some issues have come up:
(when I say options i dont mean OPTIONS, I just mean 
 "options", the discovery mechanism may be OPTIONS, mandatory, or other)

1) the need for per resource options 
 I think we agree that we need this

2) the need for server level (resource independent options)
 This is an area of contention.  I beleive that we need this,
 but there is not consensus.
 Maybe we need to separate per-resource, (higher level) options
 from server (lower level options )
 high level: 
 (which could be answered by the resource)
   Methods allowed ( GET,POST, etc)

 low level:
  (answered by 'core' server )
  "do you support proxying?"
  "do you understand full URIs"
     (currently, apache is 1.1, but does not accept full URLS)
Received on Monday, 23 March 1998 14:30:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 15:49:08 UTC