- From: Dave Long <dave@navisoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 00:03:12 -0800 (PST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
" at Dec 29, 95 01: 42:15 pm Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 00:03:11 -0800 From: Dave Long <dave@geek.navisoft.com> Larry asks: >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): >- Should PUT be removed from HTTP/1.1? No - The original specification is better than nothing. >- Should PUT go into HTTP/1.1 as originally specified, > but with a warning as to its unreliability? Yes - I am happy with the original specification; it does have weak points, but it is not hopelessly broken. >- Are you interested in drafting a counter-proposal? Maybe - I would like to see the following added: Clients may avoid sending the remainder of a request at any time after the response has started. However, before I attempt to make a formal counter-proposal, I'd like to have some idea that others (Roy? Roger?) have tried this solution and it solves their problems as well as it does mine. I can make Windows, Sun4, Solaris, HP, and Mac clients available for testing. Summary ------- If there is enough interest in HTTP-WG land, I would like to avoid sending entity-bodies unnecessarily. If there isn't, then I'd much rather have PUT in HTTP/1.1 as originally specified than to have it left out. -Dave
Received on Monday, 8 January 1996 00:07:33 UTC