- From: <Adrian.Colley@sse.ie>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 21:21:00 +0000
- To: http-wg (will serve files for coffee) <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
In message <ab973a1d0802100484fc@[129.106.201.2]> of Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:41:34 -0600, cshotton@biap.com (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=... -- Adrian.Colley@sse.ie <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