- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:25:47 +0100 (MET)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter: > >> The Safe response header solves _some_ of the problems we have because we >> don't have GET-WITH-BODY. Once we GET-WITH-BODY is deployed though, Safe >> becomes superfluous. >> >> So it is Safe now, GET-WITH-BODY later. >> > >I think this is a dangerous strategy for standards track in the IETF, >and >I think we should approach any feature that is designed to be >superfluous later >with great suspicion. I proposed Safe to quicky solve a deployment problem for RFC2070. It is a bug fix, not a new feature. If there had been more contacts between the http-wg and the i18n group before both drafts went to last call, we would not have had this deployment problem in the first place. Please see my internet draft for a longer discussion of this issue. >Larry Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 1997 00:26:55 UTC