W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996


From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 02:30:52 PDT
To: mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it
Cc: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Oct9.023052pdt."2759"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1726
> I was however wondering if any addition to 1.1 should be lumped together
> and put in waiting list for 1.2 , or there is some shortcut, something
> like tables' RFC in HTML. I know that probably it is more a political
> issue, but for "simple" modifications a preferential route would be
> great.

Remember when we had subcommittees, many of the subgroups wrote an
internet draft that described their conclusions. Most of those IDs
were then merged into the main document.

I think we need to decide on the 'editorial' issues around the next
version of the HTTP specification (including how many documents we
have) later. In the meanwhile, though, I think ANY proposed change or
addition to HTTP must appear in SOME Internet-draft.

If there are really separable issues, it's probably better to deal
with them as separate drafts. An Internet draft does not need a lot of
boilerplate, and can be very short. It just needs to be written in a
way that the idea stands on its own outside of the context of the
torrent of mail.

I've gotten feedback from many quarters that we should not try to move
too quickly on HTTP/1.2 until there's more experience with HTTP/1.1.
This is influencing my thoughts on the schedule.


Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 02:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC