- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:47:03 -0500
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Bertrand Le Roy <Bertrand.Le.Roy@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Thomas, On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:43 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > 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? Yes, Anne asked the HTTP WG to review the AC4CSR doc via the following: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/ 0298.html> Like Anne, I do not believe the HTTP WG has responded although Mark's participation on this list could be on behalf of his WG. Regards, Art Barstow --- > > http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-waf-minutes#item09 > > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 01:47:54 UTC