On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:19:54AM -0400, Adam Kocoloski wrote: > Snell's draft explicitly says this is not meant to replace pipelining, but > there sure are a lot of similarities. Pipelining also allows for multiple > requests to be sent over a persistent connection without waiting for a > response, so it achieves many of the benefits of Multipart/Batch. It's > interesting that Snell's example show multiple POST requests being batched > together -- pipelining non-idempotent methods is something a client SHOULD NOT > do per RFC 2616, Section 8.1.2.2.
Perhaps you should address these concerns to the IETF? Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
