- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:51:22 +0200
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Catching up... this is now issue 55. >> >> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i55 >> >> Cheers, >> >> On 2007/01/06, at 12:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> The update from RFC2048 to RFC4288 requires minor modifications for >>> the media type registrations for "message/http", "application/http" >>> and "multipart/byteranges", thus we probably should treat this as a >>> separate issue. >>> >>> I've looked at RFC4288 and extended the registrations -- see >>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon- >>> rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.A> and <http://www.w3.org/ >>> Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis- >>> latest.html#rfc.section.B>. Feedback appreciated... >> > Hi Julian, > The change seems fine, but I am not sure that the "Interoperability > considerations" and "Applications that use this media type" should stay > empty. Agreed. Does anybody have input for these fields? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 19:52:54 UTC