W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

RE: budget to implement HTML6 (second answer to Mark Baker)

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:47:29 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Dmitry Turin'" <html60@narod.ru>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <078c01c94016$360a6980$a21f3c80$@com>

I agree. I do not think that it is possible for this group to provide any
kind of guess or information about the cost of implementation, especially
not for a feature this complex.

J.Ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:13 AM
> To: Dmitry Turin
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: budget to implement HTML6 (second answer to Mark Baker)
> 
> 
> Dmitry Turin wrote:
> >>> communication via SQL5 [3] over TCP (to avoid HTTP as redundant
> gasket [4]
> >
> >> SQL was designed for database access
> >
> >
> >
> > HTTP was converted into Baments (<?bament/?>, slides #27-26 of
> http://sql50.euro.ru/sql5.16.4.pdf).
> >
> > Baments, as well as Saments
> >
> > (Sent eleMENT, i.e. usual xml-element, including html-elements as
> particular case of xml-element)
> >
> > was incapsulated into SQL syntax.
> >
> > Composition (SQL+Saments+Baments) obtained name SQL5, and transfered
> just over TCP.
> >
> >
> >
> > Main difference between HTTP and SQL5 consist of that, Baments
> traffic does not close TCP-connection
> >
> > (in opposite to HTTP, which, as i know, do this).
> > ...
> 
> I have trouble understanding how this whole discussion is related to
> the
> HTML WG. Is any of the things you are proposing in the WG's charter?
> 
> That being said, HTTP has had kept-alive connections since HTTP/1.1.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 13:55:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC