- From: <touch@isi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:00:07 -0800
- To: touch@isi.edu, ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu
- Cc: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, rsalz@osf.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com
> From ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu Wed Feb 19 19:01:13 1997 > > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 touch@ISI.EDU wrote: > > > > Doing the proxy is fine, and isn't what > > is being proposed by 'transparent selection'- > > I guess I missed adding "at the browser"... > > I would argue that the two cases are identical; in this case, the server > is acting as the bottom half of a split client. It is not. With a proxy, the browser is speaking with the proxy. We don't care where the proxy gets its information from, whether via a disk or a back-end connection. And we can't (and shouldn't be able) to tell the difference, per se. Embedding the proxy in the browser changes the protocol the browser speaks, and that's what we need to keep stable. That's the point of a protocol. Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/~touch/ ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/ USC / Research Assistant Prof. http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 09:05:02 UTC