- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:31:25 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list >> marked as "closed": >> >> i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25) >> i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26) >> i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31) >> i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65) >> i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66) >> i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68) >> i70-cacheability-of-303: WG status active (i70) >> i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84) >> i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86) >> i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87) >> >> Should I go ahead and submit a draft -04 with these changes? > > i25, i31, and i70 are design issues. Let me review the discussion on > them, and if they need more, I'll ping the list shortly (it's getting > late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can close them. I think we have lazy consensus on i25 and i31. For i70, I'll revert the changes until we come to a conclusion. > The rest are editorial, and can (and should) be incorporated. A new > draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential. So, unless there are some objections, I'll produce a -04 draft including the resolutions to: i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25) i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26) i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31) i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65) i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66) i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68) i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84) i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86) i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87) (plus some editorial stuff). >>> * Open HTTP issues >> >> The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a few >> harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process on these: >> >> - ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the # >> rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30> >> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36> > > Would you be willing to make a presentation outlining the choices here? Yes. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 12:31:50 UTC