- From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:10 +0000
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 22 Nov 2016, at 22:26, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > > However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in, your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :). I have no immediate intent to implement, but this is only due to limitations or constraints on the clients and servers I work on. I doubt any of my clients will implement Link header following directly because it’s of limited utility in programmatic clients. However, I intend for all my clients to tolerate such headers. On the server side the server I work on most right now has no support for returning headers before body computation, but I will investigate whether there is interest in providing such support. If there is, I will implement 103. At a higher level, I’m +1 on this idea: I think it’s a good solution that uses established protocol tools to solve a very real problem. Cory
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 17:05:47 UTC