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

Re: Creating a HTTP "protocol feature set"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:54:33 +1100
Message-Id: <F4B5F7C8-E144-4EFE-A1FC-7EBDE88124C4@mnot.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'Peter Saint-Andre'" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
To: <LMM@acm.org>

That sounds like a good topic for discussion in Vancouver. Larry,  
will you be coming?

I'm also reminded of the HTTP requirements summary:
   http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/99mar/I-D/draft-ietf-http-req- 
sum-00.txt

and obliquely of the work at WS-I;
   http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html

Even if it weren't official output, this kind of work could help make  
sure that the requirements, roles and features in the document are  
well-defined.

Thanks,


On 04/11/2007, at 5:57 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>
> When we were preparing to move HTTP to Draft Standard, we put together
> a 'feature list' so that we could check off whether there were at  
> least
> two independent interoperable implementations of every feature.
> See:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/Reports/
>
> This experience and others in other working groups led me to
> propose an (experimental) process:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports
>
> For an extensive feature set document (based on that idea) see:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xmpp-feature-set
>
> I don't know if the working group wants to take on preparing
> a separate document, but when you're reviewing the document
> for clarity, it might be useful to review whether the
> "feature list" could easily be constructed.
>
> Larry
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 10:57:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT