W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:24:48 +1300
Message-ID: <4B0DA0A0.1020408@qbik.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

I thought when this was discussed previously it was concluded that range 
unit extensions were a really bad idea, and that they were to be deprecated.

or was that just wishful thinking on my part?

How on earth is a proxy supposed to deal with extensions to range units?


Julian Reschke wrote:
> Kris Zyp wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> We'll also need to determine what the requirements for registration
>>>> are (standards-track?), and set up the registry.
>>> For now we haven't defined a registry (I think the idea was to wait
>>> for the first use case to come up and then discuss again).
>> So if I wanted to submit a request to register "items" as a range unit
>> extension per the discussion in this thread ([1] for reference), is
>> there a way I could that?
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/re6oo4hq3wvt6qhn
>> ...
>
> The short answer I think is: not right now.
>
> But even if HTTPbis *did* have the registry now, using it would block 
> publication until HTTPbis is ready as well. Would that be acceptable?
>
> BR, Julian
>
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 21:21:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:13 GMT