- From: <hallam@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 18:25:16 -0500
- To: hardie@nasa.gov, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: hallam@w3.org
>I don't, however, see any overlap >between the two. If there are overlapping cases, describing them >would help me a lot in understanding the problem. 1 Signed live video feed. 2 Signed content generated on the fly 3 Authenticated messages I have *code* which *runs* which covers item 2. > Remember, we are talking here about what to put in 1.1, not >the whole future of HTTP; what can we get done now that moves us forward? Remember you are suggesting taking the current 1.1 spec and changing it. Nobody has provided any reason why this should either:- 1) Be any simpler to implement. 2) Allow aggrement to be reached in a shorter time frame. If people don't want to have a large burden writing code for 1.1 then what is wrong with simply specifying a footer but defining no valid entity-footers for use in it except for extension-tag? What is the reason for introducing a broken version of chunked in the 1.1 spec simply so that we can fix it in 1.2? That will involve a lot more code and it will mean that 1.1 compliant caches and gateways will not know how to interact with 1.2 messages. Why can't people simply agree with *me* in order to move the spec forward? I generally think that the best specs are those which anticipate the next revision. That is all I am saying we should do. I'm willing to hear a technical argument. Simply asking me to go along with a *CHANGE* to the spec for the *WORSE* makes absolutely no *SENSE* to me. Ted, please at the very least acknowledge that you are the one who is proposing a change. Phill
Received on Friday, 15 March 1996 18:07:47 UTC