- From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:39:06 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 06/09/2011 09:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message<4DF0DDCA.3090700@gmail.com>, Dzonatas Sol writes: > >> On 06/09/2011 01:26 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> > >>>> I'm still not convinced it's even possible to create a 100% >>>> "transparent" (in the common english sense of the word) proxy that >>>> complies with the RFC. >>>> >>>> >>> I have always understood the "transparent" to pertain to the contents >>> being undamaged and unchanged, and not to the details of how it was >>> transmitted (Via, Transfer-Encoding etc) ? >>> >> Yet we also speak of proxies that transform the protocol and scheme and >> try not to change the semantic content. That may seem transparent to the >> semantic web. >> > That is what I consider a proper proxy: A gadget which facilitates > communication without disturbing the message content. > Yes except we (at the proxy level) think in content by types rather then content of the entire message while gateways worry more about content by message length and less about types at depth. > It certainly seems to me that we should make sure we all agree what > the existing words mean, before we expect the rest of the world to > understand what we are talking about. > That is why we determine strict types, and how we continue on with business until another question of context (i.e. 203). To add to the "proper proxy" think of that as the user-agent. Now some want that user-agent local and some want that remote. In this sense, we can raise 203 in intentionally stateful context that falls short of that for "no known cause". -- --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol --- Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 17:40:21 UTC