- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:06:18 +0000
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 20/01/15 13:22, Yves Lafon wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > >>> One of the reasons the HTTP WG is very unlikely to standardize this >>> is that there's so little technical advantage to doing this with a >>> new verb (at least as far as I can see). The main reasons would be >>> queries > 2k, but your saved queries solve that, and allowing >>> intermediate nodes to understand and cache based on query semantics, >>> ... and MAYBE the Get option would allow that. >> >> Some of the disadvantages of your approach I can think of at present: >> >> ? Queries are limited to < 2k > Source? Server side limts seem to be 8K nowadays (Jetty, squid-cache). [1] Browsers have limits: [2]. Locally, we have (accidentally, machine generated) ended up with megabyte URLs that worked just fine. It doesn't make them a good idea though; buffering and decoding overheads begin to show whereas processing a body can be done more efficiently. Andy [1] http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200208/0423.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/squid/msg34727.html [2] https://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427 >
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:06:50 UTC