- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:23:37 -0700
- To: Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯) <gavinp@chromium.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯) wrote:
> Given that http requests are already happening with these markers, and
> that there's three incompatible & inconsistant practices for
> specifying this activity,
> how should we proceed? I think it would be best if there was one
> header for conveying purposes such as prefetch, preview, etc....
> Immediately, I think a variation on the Safari practice, and a header
> such as:
>
> Purpose: preview
>
> or
>
> Purpose: prefetch
>
> Is likely to best serve everybody's interest.
>
> Do we agree that this is a useful thing to specify, and if so, what is
> the best way to proceed if we agree?
Yes. For example, I put in waka
messageType = "Q" ; active request
| "q" ; passive request
| "f" ; prefetch request
| "P" ; active test-probe
| "p" ; passive test-probe
...
Which would translate into
(default no header = active)
Purpose: passive (inline image, stylesheet, etc.)
Purpose: prefetch (what you describe for cache or preview)
I am assuming that the preview function also populates the cache
and acts as a prefetch. If not, then you might want to distinguish
them as separate purposes.
....Roy
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 23:24:07 UTC