- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 05:53:35 -0700
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 1, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> But there is no question that >> pipelining is hard to do right across all implementations. That >> doesn't mean it can't be done across some implementations, and there >> really isn't much point in discussing it -- the standard will not >> be changed. > > Without changing the standard -- here's a proposed enhancement: That would obviously change the standard -- in this case, by implying that all the existing implementations of pipelining, the vast majority of which do work quite fine, do not work just because they lack this new header field. There is nothing you can add to the protocol to fix non-compliant intermediaries and servers that are already deployed -- no matter what you do, they will behave in some non-compliant way to screw up the plan. The right thing to do is let breakage occur until someone gets off their rear end and replaces the broken software with something not so broken, at which point the existing protocol defined by the existing standard, which has already been proven to be interoperable, will work fine just as it does now with the majority of servers already deployed on the Internet. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 12:53:07 UTC