W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Not UDP? Re: Proposed HTML ping attribute

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:13:11 -0500
Message-ID: <e9dffd640801171413k1c96ab16t5453f0fd6aa8c0a4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On 1/17/08, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
> The application semantics here are defined: it is a report of
> a link-following action to a monitor.   People argue was to whether
> it is more like an HTTP GET or HTTP POST, but whether the
> ping protocol maps onto a GET or POST in HTTP is  question
> you don't have to answer if you get a UDP port and define an
> protocol spec for it.

I don't understand.  The issue here, I think, is exactly whether the
ping message should have GET or POST semantics (not that it'll
necessarily have to use HTTP - I'm just referring to the meaning of
GET and POST).  Whether TCP or UDP is used as a transport seems
immaterial.  I certainly agree that UDP has advantages for that kind
of message though.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:55 UTC