W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: PUSH Clarifications

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:02:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWNDTO3nu4DX7Ah6sjk3F7H55MqmjxV29XJu9Xge7ZLPg@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC