W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Josh Cohen (Exchange) <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:31:34 -0800
Message-ID: <BFF90FB6CF66D111BF4F0000F840DB850E75DD49@LASSIE>
To: Koen Holtman <Koen.Holtman@cern.ch>, "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Faltstrom'" <paf@swip.net>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koen Holtman [mailto:Koen.Holtman@cern.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:51 AM
> To: Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Patrik
> Faltstrom'; Yaron Goland (Exchange); Scott Lawrence; moore@cs.utk.edu;
> discuss@apps.ietf.org; Peter Ford (Exchange); Koen Holtman
> Subject: RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the main objections to making Mandatory proposed is that we are
> not convinced, as a community, that using Mandatory is superior to all
> the other ways of extending HTTP.  So we should not recommend that
> everybody make exclusive use of Mandatory by making it proposed. 
> 
This implies that there are other "ways" on the table.  I have seen
none, and none have been proposed as alternatives.
When functionality is desired, and no other good alternative
shows its head, our obligation is to move forward with the
one that is at hand.
"proposed" means proposed.  If a new scheme comes along
it could easily obsolete the current spec.
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 22:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:26 GMT