- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:35:26 -0400
- To: HTTP Working Group List <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
>>>>> "DM" == David W. Morris: DM> I think that combined with making the 100 CONTINUE an explicitly requested DM> optional response would provide the step wise operation which would DM> provide the efficiency when needed by assuring the client the ability to DM> expect the 100 CONTINUE but have no requirement for any server to always DM> response with 100 CONTINUE. I think a win-win. >>>>> "JF" == John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>: JF> This is an eminently sensible idea. The client could *choose* to wait JF> for "100 CONTINUE" and signal this choice to the server with an JF> appropriate header. On what basis should the client decide that waiting for the 100 is important for the current PUT or POST? The client does not have any way to know what the specific semantics of the operation are. In fact, the server often will not know either - it is just serving a form. Even adding HTML markup (which I am NOT advocating) would not solve the problem, as not all PUT and POST operations will be a result of the use of HTML. -- Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com> Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 07:37:23 UTC