- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:28:31 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Quoting Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>: > > > On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:40, ext Jon Hanna wrote: > > > > > ... I remain unconvinced of the case > > for MGET. > > Can you demonstrate how the equivalent behavior can be > implemented using the existing methods without resulting > in either (a) multiple requests for each single logical > operation or (b) unintended side effects in the case of > misunderstanding between client and server, or (c) efficient > and explicit failure if the request is not understood? I'll qualify "unconvinced" as meaning "I've only looked at this a tiny bit, and it didn't convince me" as opposed to "I've looked at this a lot and I think it's wrong". It's an uninformed instinct thing. That said, and given that URIQA is on my list of stuff I want to look at in the near future (but I've been putting it off until after my current paying project) why not GET application/rdf+xml rather than MGETting? Granted an attempt to do so will result in most servers sending you text/html or whatever and hoping for the best, but you can stop listening after the headers, it seems an explicit enough failure. -- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "…it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 08:28:38 UTC