- From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 18:24:35 +0200
- To: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
% Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> 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. % >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. % 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. I understand too that it's better to leave this feature in a separate draft. 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. .mau.
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 1996 09:31:10 UTC