W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:17:44 PDT
To: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Oct7.171744pdt."2769"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1715
The reason for asking for a separate draft is because of a combination
of factors, none of which depend on this being a 'big' idea: there is
not yet apparent consensus on the idea, and also, so far we are
handling proposed extensions to HTTP with separate drafts.

The proposal changes frequently (Friday it was 'redo-safe', today it
is 'safe') and it won't be clear what we're asking for consensus on
until there is an internet draft on which we do Last Call.

If we don't have a separate draft and apparent consensus on that
separate draft, then we won't be able to add this to the standard.

You might think it's unfair that proposals that were made before
HTTP/1.1 became 'proposed standard' didn't require this extra level of
nonsense, but this kind of inertia is necessary to achieve stability.

Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 17:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC