On 2008-01-05 13:04:05 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It is very clear that the spec deviates from usual HTTP GET > usage. The HTTPish way would be using OPTIONS with a new response > header that had application-level caching semantics.
> However, OPTIONS has been rejected due to issues in the popular > Apache server with certain modules. Art, correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe the conclusion of that discussion was *not* that OPTIONS is deemed rejected, but rather, that the group is seeking input from the HTTP community on what design to use? http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-waf-minutes#item09 -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
