Re: Revising RFC2616 - what's happening

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>To help find out, a few things have been happening;
>    * Yves Lafon and Julian Reschke have published an I-D that re- 
>states RFC2616 using xml2rfc, so that people can verify it's a  
>faithful transcription. Soon, they'll publish an -01 that  
>incorporates the errata that Scott has captured in <http://purl.org/ 
>NET/http-errata> (which didn't require additional discussion).

I think it would be a mistake to keep the document in its current form
as a monolithic document; it should be split into several documents to
make the whole thing approachable. Obvious candidates for separate specs
would be caching, content negotiation, message format, and URL schemes.

>    * I'm working on an issues list that captures all of the problems  
>that have popped up on the list, so that we can track proposed errata  
>and clarifications. Expect to see the first revision of that soon.

Is there any chance to set up a usable issue tracking system?

>Further down the road, we'll need to figure out if, when and how a WG  
>should be (re-)formed. There's also the opportunity to do interop  
>work, and perhaps even a test suite (something that I've heard a few  
>people express interest in), if enough people are willing to do it.

There is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/http-compliance/ btw.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 13:22:12 UTC