Also, I am also aware of the fact that Akamai did not support PUT and DELETE which caused certain problems for our Atom servers, until of course we worked with them to fix it.
Now all is right with Akamai. Just one example of how the market can help influence adoption. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kyle Marvin > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 6:34 AM > To: Tim Bray > Cc: Atom-Protocol Protocol > Subject: Re: Talking to PhotoMatt on APP > > > On 2/12/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think this is a problem. > > > > Is the WG prepared to think seriously about a Pace to allow > replacing > > and deleting entries via POST? > > > > If not, I'll write an I-D for an extension to make this possible. > > -Tim > > Tim, > > At Google, we've had several internal discussions on this issue. > Our concerns aren't the ones you cited (low-end servers not supporting > PUT/DELETE) but rather the possibility that intermediate proxies might > have issues with PUT/DELETE. We've been considering a workaround > similar to the one proposed by James in this thread (POST to > resource URI with header indicating the target operation). > > For us, this is only considered to be a transient workaround > due to the fact that the Net infrastructure can evolve > sloppily and at different rates, and PUT/DELETE just aren't > used frequently enough > (yet) to expect 100% support. For Google (a service provider), it's > not OK to take a dogmatic line and say that users can't access > services until intermediaries get fixed. So while I wouldn't > necessarily advocate extending APP core to codify this > behavior, I think we'd be amenable to the draft I-D extension > approach and would be very likely support it. > > Cheers! > > -- Kyle > >
