W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

RE: MUST use Content-Base

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:00:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0E721B@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen' <frystyk@w3.org>, Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>, koen@win.tue.nl
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Nothing like defining current implementations as broken to really get
companies excited about the open standards process.

	"Be standards compliant" I said. "It's an RFC" I said. Sigh...

		Yaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [SMTP:frystyk@w3.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 07, 1998 11:28 AM
> To:	Foteos Macrides; koen@win.tue.nl
> Cc:	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: MUST use Content-Base
> 
> At 12:49 1/7/98 -0500, Foteos Macrides wrote:
> 
> >	If there is at lease one other client besides Lynx which has
> >implemented it, I do not think that it should be deleted.  The
> requirement
> >is for "two independent implementations" ;( NOT "implementation by two
> >major commercial clients", though they both should implement it to be
> >HTTP/1.1 compliant );
> 
> Libwww [1] does it as well, so I think we are all set :)
> 
> Henrik
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Library/
> --
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
> World Wide Web Consortium
> http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 22:04:50 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:09 EDT