- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:42:43 -0700
- To: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
>Given that RFC 2169 "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN >Resolution" and some caching recommendations from this working group >have both cited specific path patterns, is it time to discuss something >like "assigned paths", similar to assigned numbers? The answer is that there are no special paths. Both RFC 2169 and 2068 are wrong in that regard. Using a contorted form of GET in order to do name resolution using HTTP is a particularly bad idea. All that is needed is a new method (corresponding to the requested action) and send the full URI. That's what proxied HTTP is all about. .....Roy
Received on Thursday, 26 June 1997 10:54:51 UTC