Re: Revising RFC2616 - what's happening

There are lots of optimisations we could make to make it cleaner,  
more clearly architected, etc., but it seems to me that going down  
that path brings a real risk of either encountering a rat-hole, or of  
making things worse.

E.g., If too much material is moved around, we risk disorienting  
implementers.

I'm not sure separate docs are necessary, but if we contemplate any  
kind of reorg, it should be *after* all errata, etc. are agreed to  
and incorporated.



On 2006/10/19, at 6:21 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> 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.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/