W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: PEP Battle Plan [rexmit, garbled]

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 17:34:22 -0400
Message-Id: <9610192134.AA22395@sulphur.osf.org>
To: khare@w3.org, moore@cs.utk.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1824
>> Progress on an extension mechanism is essential because it is the future of
>> 1.x and binary encodings of it.
>I realize this is heresy here, but I have to wonder if it's worth
>building the extension mechanism into HTTP.

I don't think there's anything heretical about "declare victory and
move on."

I, ,too, don't think PEP is the future of HTTP.

>It would also improve scalability, fault tolerance,

I have my own favorite site of wire protocols to suggest here. :)

>ability to 
>screen files (for content ratings, price, language, etc.) before 
>downloading, selection of multiple variants of a resource (by 
>allowing the client, rather than the server, to make the selection),  
>client selection of multiple locations of a resource, etc. 

Sounds like a call for a directory service.
Received on Saturday, 19 October 1996 14:36:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC