- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:02:54 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 August 2013 07:51, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> that time. For now, GET and HEAD are the only ones that I can see that >> make sense given the only use cases that have been put on the table. > > > I hear you but I disagree. I think that I agree with Julian here. The sense I got from the discussion was that we a) didn't want anything to be implicit (header compression makes this close to free) and b) we don't want to preclude uses that are OK in theory.
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 14:03:22 UTC