W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Proposal to make draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary a WG document

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:40:16 +0100
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7DAFBF86-4903-4AAF-80D5-5971A34A766B@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>
Paul,

On 2 Apr 2012, at 14:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Adding this to the auto-generate output loses one important feature:
> future RFCs could point to the set with a single RFC reference, not a
> gigantic pile of them. Or did I miss something and there is an
> intention to pull all the parts together at the end?

The editor's can probably reply more authoritatively than I but my interpretation of "adding to the auto-generate output" was that the httpbis editors would take Murray's text and input it to their toolchain so that all 8 parts would be generated using the same toolchain. Murray's text wouldn't be lost and so there would be a p0 that could be used as a single reference point but p0 would be generated consistently with the other 7 parts.

That's predicated with consensus being called that the approach the WG will take is the final "deliverable" will be an 8 part spec. I don't think that consensus has been called yet.

HTH
Ben
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 18:40:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT