"applications" is vague... do we mean services (URIs), or devices (clients, servers and intermediaries)? On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > What if we use the phrase "co-exist with existing HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 > applications." instead of "interoperate with existing HTTP applications." > This also makes it more clear that we are talking about well-behaved > applications. > > Henrik > > > We substantially concur with this requirement. However, the > > phrase "Any protocol binding ... should demonstrate that it > > can interoperate with > > existing HTTP applications." seems ambiguous and overlay > > broad. Surely > > there are many http applications out there (mp3 players?) for > > which XP > > might prove to be completely irrelavant. > -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 18:57:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT