Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

Larry Masinter <> wrote:
>The reason for asking for a separate draft is because of a combination
>of factors, none of which depend on this being a 'big' idea: there is
>not yet apparent consensus on the idea, and also, so far we are
>handling proposed extensions to HTTP with separate drafts.
>The proposal changes frequently (Friday it was 'redo-safe', today it
>is 'safe') and it won't be clear what we're asking for consensus on
>until there is an internet draft on which we do Last Call.
>If we don't have a separate draft and apparent consensus on that
>separate draft, then we won't be able to add this to the standard.
>You might think it's unfair that proposals that were made before
>HTTP/1.1 became 'proposed standard' didn't require this extra level of
>nonsense, but this kind of inertia is necessary to achieve stability.

	It is not an issue of unfairness, but simply misperception of
the situation.  I can see now that a separate draft was required for
addition of a header (idempotent->redo-safe->safe) or method (repost)
from the outset of his discussion.

	It might be better, then, if Roy and Koen finished their
discussion of what we have term the "rel=source alternative", and
a qualifed group of people took on the issue of safe, private and
secure storage of post-content, and mechanisms or re-using it via
a bookmark-like facility, beyond the simple, "first step" I was
suggesting.  Ideally, this should be done in coordination with the
W3C ERB.  It seems inappropriate to undertake an IETF ID that is
likely to involve new HTML markup or at least naming conventions
under circumstances where the IETF no longer has a clear role in
the development and standarization of HTML.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 1996 07:01:54 UTC