Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Serious question, not a gratuitous opening of a big can-o-worms: would 
> the WG also consider extensions to HTTP that would go into different 
> documents? That is, is the WG only for the revision of the base spec, or 
> also open to ( animated && lengthy && contentious ) discussion of other 
> documents as well?

I guess the idea was that the more we restrict the scope of what we want 
to do, the easier it'll be to gather the right group of people to do it.

For instance, RFC2617 needs a revision badly as well (for instance, wrt 
to I18N of usernames and passwords, and, as far as I can recall, certain 
problems with the definition of Digest Auth). IMHO; this should occur in 
a separate working group.

Are there any specific extensions you have in mind?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 14:59:38 UTC