- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:45:27 -0400
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On 4/20/06, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote: > > The real danger here is that the WG will be tempted to use the API > > to profile other parts of HTTP for convenience, or based on current > > implementations, as well. Please, don't. > > Precisely. Anne raised concerns about exiting CR, but if we start > profiling HTTP we'll never get out of LC. I can already hear the > hordes clamouring "when you pry RFC 2616 from the impervious grasp of > my cold, dead fingers". I'm as big an HTTP bigot as there is 8-), but really, this is as inconsequential as it comes; 15 years of deployment, and nary a lower or mixed-case method name to be found, never mind commonly used. And it's not like any functionality is being lost. If there's another option that is both backwards compatible and doesn't profile HTTP, that would of course be preferred. I just couldn't see one. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 23:45:30 UTC