W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

RE: draft-ietf-http-req-sum-00.txt

From: Woodhouse, Gregory <Gregory.Woodhouse@med.va.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:45:16 -0500
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=VA%l=VHAISFHBEXC1-970918224516Z-6274@vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov>
To: 'HTTP Working Group' <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4457
A separator we've used quite a bit is the up arrow "^".
Gregory Woodhouse
San Francisco CIO Field Office - Infrastructure
+1 415 744 6362

From:  Scott Lawrence [SMTP:lawrence@agranat.com]
Sent:  Thursday, September 18, 1997 2:39 PM
To:  HTTP Working Group
Cc:  Jeffrey Mogul
Subject:  Re: draft-ietf-http-req-sum-00.txt

  I like the proposed format.

  You suggest:

JG>  One possible implementation of this format would be as a spreadsheet,
JG>  using a portable representation (such as ``comma separated values'').
JG>  The use of a spreadsheet would allow separate editing of the
JG>  requirements summary, followed by semi-automatic insertion into the
JG>  master copy of the HTTP/1.1 specification.  It might also allow
JG>  semi-automatic extraction of subset requirements application to
JG>  specific kinds of implementations.

  I really like that idea, though looking at the example comma would
  clearly be a poor choice of separator :-).

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Thursday, 18 September 1997 15:57:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC