Re: Suggestion for HTTP 1.0

In message <ab973a1d0802100484fc@[]> of Thu, 23 Mar 1995
  14:41:34 -0600, (Chuck Shotton) wrote:

> What's more, HTTP should be considered transport independent. Relying on
> something as cheesey as twaddling the underlying protocol to do something
> that should be under conscious control between the client and server is a
> gross hack. Either build the mechanism into HTTP or live without it.
> Hacking the transport layer as a means to this end is a recipe for wreck
> and ruin the minute someone sticks this protocol on top of something
> besides TCP/IP. Remember, WWW != Unix and HTTP != TCP/IP.

Well, of course it's a cheesey hack.  But to continue the distraction for
a moment, I note that all transports of note have a flow-control element
which can be abused to implement "tentative download".  Jeff Mogul's
comments on SWS are well taken: I'd forgotten about SWS.

I still think it should be done using uri;bytes=...

--   <g=Adrian;s=Colley;o=SSE;p=SSE;a=EIRMAIL400;c=ie>
phones:- work: +353-1-6769089; fax: +353-1-6767984; home: +353-1-6606239
employer: Software and Systems Engineering (+=disclaimer)  (Perth)->o~^\
Y!AWGMTPOAFWY? 4 lines, ok? qebas perl unix-haters kill microsoft  \@##/

Received on Thursday, 23 March 1995 13:33:01 UTC