- From: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:34:50 -0400
- To: "Bill de hOra" <bill@dehora.net>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Brian McBarron" <bpm@google.com>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Anyway, I think the resumption case be dealt with straightforwardly without > any extensions to http. We agree completely. Our proposal does not involve extensions to HTTP, but rather formalizing and standardizing the HTTP semantics involved in resumption. Obviously our current proposal uses Expects where it shouldn't, but exactly the same behavior can be obtained using other headers (off the top of my head something like If-Match for the ETag, Content-Range for the byte range, and Pragma: resmue to flag resume requests, though we'll come up with a formal proposal next week). Further, regarding your mobile case, we are actively developing Google Gears modules to support two different kinds of upload resumption: - <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ContentRangePostProposal> - <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal> (previously referenced in this thread) Both solutions, along with Google Gears itself, are being designed in a cross-platform, cross-browser manner, explicitly targeting mobile devices (<http://code.google.com/apis/gears/mobile.html>). We feel strongly that there is an important gap to fill, both from a practical and a standardization perspective, with respect to resumable uploads, and we would be very excited about collaborating with other interested parties as part of this process. Charles
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 14:35:47 UTC