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

Re: Draft text: The Core Feature Set (Sections 1 - 4)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:52:28 PDT
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Oct6.235228pdt."2759"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1708
I said
>> A feature like 'implements vendor-B version 2.0 variation of tables'
>> shouldn't be standards track if vendor-B's version 2.0 variation of
>> tables isn't.

and Harald replied:
> I think we have common practice that we DO include such things in
> standards.

with several examples. However, I was really trying to apply the same
consideration to feature registration that seems to be happening with
media type registration: shouldn't there be IETF features, vendor
features, private features, experimental features, in the same way?

It wasn't an issue of 'document reference' (I know that
standards-track documents can reference non-standards-track

Received on Sunday, 6 October 1996 23:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC