- From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 96 10:40:00 PST
- To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Larry Masinter writes in <95Dec29.134224pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>: >We've had a long discussion with various counter-proposals floated, >but not much convergence. I'll ask all of you to decide between one of >the following three alternatives (I can think of no others): > >- Are you interested in drafting a counter-proposal? >- Should PUT go into HTTP/1.1 as originally specified, but > with a warning as to its unreliability? >- Should PUT be removed from HTTP/1.1? IMHO, PUT should go into HTTP/1.1 but with a warning on unreliability. My wild hunch is that to start, out of all PUT-using servers, there will be few that will run into the PUT reliability problems. This is just an extrapolation from: 1) My own experiences as an Intranet Webmaster (security considerations are less when you deal with fellow employees); and 2) Trade press reports saying that # of Intranet Webs >> # of Internet Webs. ====================================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN
Received on Thursday, 4 January 1996 07:45:22 UTC