I'm having trouble understanding the proposed solution. Could someone provide an alternate explanation or a sample protocol exchange?
Thanks, --Tyler John Panzer wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > ... > > Problem: Some HTTP-based protocols, like AtomPub, require > the use of a > > large number of distinct URIs. For example, adding a tag or > category to a > > series of posts on a blog using AtomPub requires one > non-GET request per > > blog post. While this is prohibitively expensive anyway > when done from a > > high-latency network like GSM or EDGE, it is still somewhat > painful to > > require two round trips per non-GET request in cases like > this even on > > low-latency high-bandwidth connections, and therefore > deserves further > > consideration. > > > > Proposed Solution: The proposed solution allows one new > optional header > > for OPTIONS responses. The header contains a path. > > > > ... > > > This proposal effectively addresses the performance & server side > scalability concerns I had with the cross-domain access > control mechanism. > > Thanks, > John Panzer > Tech Lead/Manager, Google (Blogger, OpenSocial, & Friends) > > > >
