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

Re: REPOST

From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 18:24:35 +0200
Message-Id: <199610081624.SAA02287@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
To: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

% Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
% >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.
% >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.
% 	It is not an issue of unfairness, but simply misperception of
% the situation.  I can see now that a separate draft was required for
% addition of a header (idempotent->redo-safe->safe) or method (repost)
% from the outset of his discussion.

I understand too that it's better to leave this feature in a separate
draft.

I was however wondering if any addition to 1.1 should be lumped together
and put in waiting list for 1.2 , or there is some shortcut, something
like tables' RFC in HTML. I know that probably it is more a political
issue, but for "simple" modifications a preferential route would be
great.

.mau.
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 1996 09:31:10 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:14 EDT