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

Re: What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04, was: Vancouver agenda topics

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:25:44 +1100
Message-Id: <8AA15DF4-AD57-4309-A09E-0F67754CA50F@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Sure. By the time we could call this a WG draft, we should be able to  
confirm consensus on those issues.

Cheers,

On 15/11/2007, at 11:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 21:29:01 GMT

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