Re: MailDAV

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Dave Winer (dave@userland.com)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 21:45:00 PST

Exactly. POST is pretty perfect for this application. Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <LM@att.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>; "Jeff Bone"
<jbone@jump.net>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; <fork@xent.com>; <dave@scripting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: MailDAV

> If you want to be a HTTP-abuser (see [1] in [2]) I recommend POST.
> It's as good as BREW [3] or INVOKE or anything else closely related.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/xp65435/LM_HTTP_extensions.ppt
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/xp65435/
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2324.txt
>
> GET means GET because common, widely deployed and highly tuned
> elements of the Internet infrastructure use caches that try to
> optimize GETs. Even though thousands of individuals each, in
> their corner of the net, can get client-server applications to work
> nicely using GET to cause their coffee pots to perk, if you
> try to deploy it out in the wide world, it won't work.
>
> "Running code" is necessary but not sufficient.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 21:45:59 PST