Re: Search feedback (was: Re: Slow HTTP Responses)

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Scott W Brim: "Re: Slow HTTP Responses"
• Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Slow HTTP Responses"
• In-reply-to: M. Strata Rose: "Search feedback (was: Re: Slow HTTP Responses)"
• Reply: Rob McCool: "Re: Search feedback (was: Re: Slow HTTP Responses)"

To: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
In-reply-to: "M. Strata Rose"'s message of Thu, 13 Jan 1994 16:48:05 -0800 <CMM.0.90.0.758508485.strata@fenchurch>
Subject: Re: Search feedback (was: Re: Slow HTTP Responses)
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Fake-Sender: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Message-id: <94Jan14.182056pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: 	Fri, 14 Jan 1994 18:20:42 PST
Content-Length: 622

There are two independent issues:

1)  what channel is used for sending status information back.
   Async UDP
   In-band escape sequences
   ...
   (maybe this is something that you specify in your 'GET' request
   if you're willing to accept them, and something that comes
   back in the header if there's a place to recieve them)

2) What is the nature of the progress report:
    percentage complete
    amount of time remaining
    X out of Y as Strata Rose indicated


I think we can manage to support all combinations of these,
optionally, in the protocol, and then see what actually gets
implemented and supported.