W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: RFC2616 revision, was: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:53:56 -0600
Message-ID: <440C8544.5010000@rowe-clan.net>
To: jg@freedesktop.org
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Jim,

If this can be presented as redline markup then, yes I'd be happy to, count
me in to help vet and review proposed changes.  I'd even be willing, if we
chop up the list by months, to advocate a specific span of time, say postings
across some specific six month period, to discover which have value and
summarize those posts with references.

Spending hours looking at diffs, however, is not something I have cycles for.
I'll do that in one stab at the very end of the markup review process, as it's
still a necessary evil, but not one that works well during the editing process
for the reviewers.

Yours,

Bill
Apache httpd Server PMC member


Jim Gettys wrote:
> That's a good idea.
> 
> Still doesn't solve the problem of getting people to *read* and *verify*
> the results, which is the fundamental sticking point, IMHO.  So far, no
> promises from anyone I've heard.
> 			- Jim
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 10:09 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
>>Maybe we could evaluate whether the downlevel references from
>>HTTP might qualify under the guidelines of BCP 97, RFC 3967
>>("Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively
>>  to Documents at a Lower Level"), since that seemed to be
>>the sticking point last time we looked at this (which was before
>>RFC 3967 was around).
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 18:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:42 GMT