- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:43:51 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, art.barstow@nokia.com
- Cc: Bertrand Le Roy <Bertrand.Le.Roy@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On 2008-01-05 13:04:05 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It is very clear that the spec deviates from usual HTTP GET > usage. The HTTPish way would be using OPTIONS with a new response > header that had application-level caching semantics. > However, OPTIONS has been rejected due to issues in the popular > Apache server with certain modules. Art, correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe the conclusion of that discussion was *not* that OPTIONS is deemed rejected, but rather, that the group is seeking input from the HTTP community on what design to use? http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-waf-minutes#item09 -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 23:43:57 UTC