On 2012-01-28 00:37, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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. Hm. Isn't it foreseeable that we'll have to tune P1 more anyway for a different on-the-wire format? >> 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? Indeed: and I think that's a problem with the plan. Best regards, JulianReceived on Saturday, 28 January 2012 08:11:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT