- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:16:12 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote: > I haven't yet heard anyone say that HTTP/1.2 or 2.0 is a good idea Ideally, after 2616bis and 2617bis are ready (maybe even as DS), you could take 2616bis, s/Latin-1/UTF-8/g and s/URI/IRI/g, and republish the result as HTTP/1.2 in a 2616ter. > WRT authentication: I agree with most of what you say; it's just > that such work would likely be on a much different timescale than > revising 2616. After 2616bis got a proper no-nonsense ABNF I'd also like to see a corresponding no-nonsense ABNF in a future 2617bis. Plus the fine print, e.g. is 2616 md5-sess really incompatible with 2831 md5-sess. Frank
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 07:19:10 UTC