Babak
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rdebry@us.ibm.com [SMTP:rdebry@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 7:22 AM
>To: Babak Jahromi; ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post
>
>
>Babek, so would you propose one new method, say "PRINT" with sub-operations
>to
>express the IPP methods, or would you propose several new HTTP methods, one
>for
>each IPP method?
>---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 02/25/97
>08:17
>AM ---------------------------
>
> ipp-owner @ pwg.org
> 02/24/97 08:24 PM
>
>
>To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM, ipp @ pwg.org@internet
>cc:
>Subject: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post
>
>
>Seems like Win32 Internet APIs allows inventing a new HTTP method in the
>client side as well.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 1997 7:15 PM
>>To: Babak Jahromi
>>Subject: RE: MyPost vs. Post
>>
>>In that case the answer is yes for WinInet. --
>>When you call HttpOpenRequest(), the second argument is the verb which can
>>be
>>anything -- a GET, a POST, or whatever else you will pass to that function.
>>--Wininet Development
>>
>>----------
>>From: Babak Jahromi
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 1997 6:57 PM
>>Subject: RE: MyPost vs. Post
>>
>>
>>What I have in mind is to potentially define a new "post" command that both
>>client and the server would understand and use. Today Windows Internet
>>clients (like the browser) use Wininet.dll APIs to talk to an HTTP server.
>>So
>>to invent a new HTTP method, ideally the client can tell the Wininet APIs to
>>use this new custom method, and on the server side we can implement an ISAPI
>>filter that horors the new method.
>>
>>Babak
>>
>