- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:29:50 +0200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Martin Duerst wrote: > First, when I looked at the updated draft, I was assuming that all issues > appear therein. Apparently not. What's the criterion for showing them in > the draft? If they have been accepted/implemented? Or something else? Right, sorry for that. Closed issues (issues where there was mailing list consensus for resolving) should appear as changed text. Open issues should appear in the appendix. This one was simply missing (now fixed), and I'll go through the issues list this weekend to check for other mismatches. In the end, the issues list at <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> is what counts. > As for issue #20, it's definitely very related, but the commenter > (Mark) is most concerned about interaction with other specs, whereas > my main point is interaction with reality. I'll leave it to the editing > team to decide whether they want to handle this as one or two issues, > but if you handle it as one issue, please add my comment text > (not necessarily the point about the US-ASCII default for text/...xml) > to the issue description. OK. Best regards and sorry for the confusion, Julian
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2007 09:30:16 UTC