W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:16:12 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ff4d0s$3v4$1@ger.gmane.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I haven't yet heard anyone say that HTTP/1.2 or 2.0 is a good idea

Ideally, after 2616bis and 2617bis are ready (maybe even as DS), you
could take 2616bis, s/Latin-1/UTF-8/g and s/URI/IRI/g, and republish
the result as HTTP/1.2 in a 2616ter.  

> WRT authentication: I agree with most of what you say; it's just
> that such work would likely be on a much different timescale than
> revising 2616.

After 2616bis got a proper no-nonsense ABNF I'd also like to see a
corresponding no-nonsense ABNF in a future 2617bis.  Plus the fine
print, e.g. is 2616 md5-sess really incompatible with 2831 md5-sess.

 Frank
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 07:19:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:22 GMT