Thomas,
On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:43 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
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?
Yes, Anne asked the HTTP WG to review the AC4CSR doc via the following:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/
0298.html>
Like Anne, I do not believe the HTTP WG has responded although Mark's
participation on this list could be on behalf of his WG.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-waf-minutes#item09
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
