- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:09:38 -0700
- To: "'James M Snell'" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'Cyrus Daboo'" <cyrus@daboo.name>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
It makes sense to me to include application notes for a protocol element that is hard to understand without more context of how it will be used. If that includes examples from WebDAV and Atompub, so be it. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of James M Snell Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:44 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: Cyrus Daboo; ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Lisa Dusseault Subject: Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft Julian Reschke wrote: > James M Snell wrote: >> I can understand why this would be desirable. I, however, am nowhere >> near qualified to discuss any reasonable considerations for WebDAV. > > Well, we can help with that; it's just not clear whether we want that in > the same spec. Many people automatically ignore things just because the > term WebDAV comes up. > Yep. It would make just as much sense to put in an Atompub considerations section. I'm just not sure we really should include it here. - James
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 19:10:33 UTC