- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:44:07 +1000
- To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
As you may be aware, I have submitted an Internet-Draft, draft-nottingham-http-roles-00.txt. I'd very much appreciate comments from the http-wg, as I see it as primarily in that domain (with some overlap to wrec and the cgi efforts). I've already gotten a few comments, and I should make some clarifications. * The draft is an applicability statement, not a protocol specification. * My goal is to clarify responsibility for protocol implementation between servers, publishers, and facilities like CGI, PHP, NSAPI, ISAPI, Cold Fusion, etc. * Some of the measures it calls for will place some additional load on the server; this is an intentional decision. I believe that server vendors have sacrificed protocol compliance for benchmark speed, which in the long run doesn't do anyone any good. This is probably a hard pill to swallow for server vendors; I understand that some of the things it calls for will be difficult to implement. I'd like to use the draft process as an opportunity to work them out. The draft is available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-roles-00.txt Please have a look at the references as well, as they help motivate the document. Any comments or help would be greatly appreciated. I'm particularly interested in help with defining WebDAV PROPPATCH extensions that will allow manipulation of HTTP-related metadata (such as Cache-Control and Expires headers, and content negotiation hints). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham, Melbourne Australia http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 16:58:43 UTC