- From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "'w3c-http@w3.org'" <w3c-http@w3.org>, Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>, Joe Peterson <joepe@microsoft.com>, Hadi Partovi <hadip@microsoft.com>, Arthur Bierer <arthurbi@microsoft.com>, Richard Firth <rfirth@microsoft.com>
> There's no point in crudding up the protocol to add workarounds > for broken implementations, and certainly it seems like a bad > idea to test dynamically for something that will happen (usually) > only once in the lifetime of the software version (namely, > the upgrade of a 1.0 proxy to 1.1). > I certainly agree that we shouldnt impose a handshake in every transaction, but I do beleive that there is a valid need for an OPTIONS method. I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options or parameters instead of object attributes or languages. It would be useful to ask an entity ( a proxy or server ), the first time you talk to it or discover it: <do you comply with> <rfc2109> or <do you support the optional feature called> <set-proxy> > Larry > -- > http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Cohen Netscape Communications Corp. Netscape Fire Department #include<disclaimer.h> Server Engineering josh@netscape.com http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 1997 23:51:27 UTC