Re: Making MGET more GET-friendly?

On Mar 10, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>>> No, I meant MGET here. I was proposing that you could continue to get
>>
>> Ok - so you still need some code in the agents.
>
> No more so than for GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc. etc.

sure - you need to add one.

> URIQA does not increase implementational burden on the client side.

Beyond some extra code to do just that; MGET.

>> If you assume that - and given the above 1:1; would it not be simpler 
>> to simply
>> postulate an extra header:
>>
>> 	Characteristics-Location: http://www.example.com/ex.rdf
>>
>> in the reply of any GET ? In particular that of the GET of 
>> http://www.example.com/ex.
>> And making sure you -also- get it when a cheaper HEAD is done ? Or 
>> does that
>> not accomplish all you want ?
>
> No. It doesn't (for me). Please see the URIQA FAQ about the 
> shortcomings
> of the header approach...
>
Yes for you - but we're discussing this (I hope!) in a wider scope.

Dw