- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:20:51 +0100
- To: "'Daniel Barclay'" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
- Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Barclay [mailto:Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com] > Sent: 02 May 2001 23:08 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction > > > "Williams, Stuart" wrote: <snip/> > I think the registry is the set of RFCs that are "traceable ... to ... > HTTP1/1." (That is, there might not be any compact, compiled summary of > all the codes.) I think IANA are maintaining a registry. See: http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm#H and http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes [The latter is the same file (content at least) as the one that Mark Nottingham found] > (Note: RFCs at Sunsite.dk have helpful forward links to later RFCs that update > or supersede them. For example, see http://sunsite.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc2616.html > and how it is annotated with "updated by 2817.") > > > > Also, would we qualify as a "standards track document within the IETF > > Applications Area."? > > No, we're not a document. :-) Ok... :-) re-phrasing then: Will a future XMLP spec qualify as an "standards track document within the IETF Applications Area."? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Barclay > Digital Focus > Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com Thanks Stuart
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 04:21:05 UTC