- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:30:13 +1000
- To: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eric, On 03/04/2007, at 10:02 AM, Eric Lawrence wrote: > I’m not sure this is the best forum for this question, but I figure > that the folks here can point me in the right direction if I’m > seriously off-topic. J The problem with proxy.pac has always been finding an appropriate forum; it's really just a set of ECMAScript extensions, so some might say that's the best place. I'm not sure I agree, as most of the relevant expertise seems to be here. > A while ago, our Networking team blogged about how Microsoft’s > HTTP stacks handle support WPAD for IPv6 addresses. > > I’m curious if you had any feedback on the approach we’ve taken: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/wndp/articles/IPV6_PAC_Extensions_v0_9.aspx > > http://blogs.msdn.com/wndp/archive/2006/07/18/IPV6-WPAD-for-WinHttp- > and-WinInet.aspx Seems sensible at a first glance, with the possible exception of getClientVersion(); can't scripts just test for the *Ex functions? Also, its value is specified as the version of the WPAD engine, but I don't think these are specific to WPAD... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 09:45:17 UTC