- From: <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 96 17:17:52 -0400
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: hallam@ai.mit.edu
With the latest suggested addition to the "simple" hit metering draft it has become as complex as my original proposal. The only difference being that in my proxy notification draft I was also considering a possible generalisation of the mechanism to cover other types of notification such as updates. Do people really believe that using the HEAD (or whatever) method to communicate hit counts is really much simpler than the server periodically requesting log files? I originally started with a scheme very close to the "simple" proposal. I had to expand the scheme after talking to people from Nielssen, Gallup and co. In the notification draft defered loading of logfiles was handled via a 3 byte, uuencoded string of a 24 bit mask corresponding to prefered download periods (in GMT). Note that on the compresssion side log file exchange is a lot better than "simple" hit count. Each logfile entry is a lot more compact than a simulated hit. Phill
Received on Friday, 16 August 1996 14:17:51 UTC