- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:42:40 -0800
- To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "'gjw@wnetc.com'" <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Cc: "'ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I think that is great idea but is this the group to propose it? We should raise flags with other groups but I think we need to keep the RFC tightly focused on distributed authoring and versioning. Yaron -----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 7:53 AM To: gjw@wnetc.com Cc: ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: POST vs. separate methods I was thinking more of a return header from ANY request that identified a set of other URLs whose cache entries should be marked stale. So, if you POST a new entry to http://host.dom/container you might get back a return header that it updated: http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-date http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-author or (even) http://host.dom/container/3q96/* This puts the computational burden on the update method rather than retrieval, and is predicated on an assumption that reads happen far more frequently than writes. Larry
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 1996 18:42:59 UTC