- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:37:33 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/01/2012, at 7:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-01-24 04:55, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... > > Please add... > > - Revise Parts 1 through 7 for publication as Internet Standard > > This should be mainly fixing problems found past publication, plus adjustments we make to better integrate whatever new we come up with. My current thinking is that we'd re-charter separately for that. > Re HTTP/next: it would be good to collect a list of things we think we should make progress on; not surprisingly, I'd nominate I18N for header field values. So, that's an interesting question. If we want HTTP/1.1 <-> 2.0 gateways, and we don't want to force them to know about individual header semantics, that implies that we can't really change header encoding, doesn't it? Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 23:38:00 UTC