From: Dave Winer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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"
Cc: "Mark Baker" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: MailDAV
> If you want to be a HTTP-abuser (see  in ) I recommend POST.
> It's as good as BREW  or INVOKE or anything else closely related.
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/xp65435/LM_HTTP_extensions.ppt
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/xp65435/
>  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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 21:45:59 PST