- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 12:24:48 -0400
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
>>>>> "LM" == Larry Masinter: LM> What do you think about splitting out the 'Requirements' LM> part of the TCN document, and seeing if we can release it LM> as an Informational RFC that is a product of the working group. >>>>> "KH" == Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>: KH> Call for opinions: If you would like to see a TCN requirements KH> document, please say so on the list or in private e-mail, in which KH> case I'll summarize on the list. Note that a TCN requirements KH> document will contain things like `it has to be a HTTP extension' and KH> `it must not rely on Java or any other scripting language'. This KH> document will not contain all requirements for all forms of KH> negotiation. I think that those constraints, while I agree that they are good properties of a solution, may be overly strong language in a requirements document. I do believe that they are strong arguments in favor of the current TCN drafts over other proposals that we have not really heard yet... LM> The exact proposal, then, can be released as Experimental. LM> That would encourage experimentation, and allow simple LM> migration to standards track if experimentation proved it LM> successful [...] We could work with it in such a framework. KH> [...] Scott Lawrence tells me that Agranat Systems is implementing KH> parts already, and that they would like to see it frozen KH> yesterday. I am also very interested in hearing (confidentially and off-list) from any browser authors/vendors who are considering even partial implementations of these features. We are interested in comparing what we are doing with what may be available on the client side, arranging for interoperablity testing, and perhaps eventually demonstrations. -- Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com> Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Sunday, 1 June 1997 17:37:13 UTC