RE: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 15/02/2008, at 11:50 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > - Is the Wiki supposed to be a tool for the editors + Chairs, or  
> > should all here try to get an account or whatever it takes 
> > for write access ?

> Right now, anyone who wants to get a tools account can 
> comment on open issues and work on the wiki. Having said 
> that, I do see it primarily as a tool for the chair and 
> editors, as well as for WG members to keep up with what we're 
> doing. I'm not particularly against folks adding to what's 
> there, as long as it's in-scope and useful, but discussion 
> and decisions need to happen on the list, so I'm not sure 
> what the benefit would be. What did you have in mind?

In the course of discussions on i69, several other issues were raised:

* What is the definition of Content-* headers?

* Why does PUT have a specific requirement regarding Content-* headers
while POST and other entity-carrying requests don't?

* If multiple resources can be created in a single (POST/PUT) request,
then the descriptions of these methods and of the 201 response code
should explicitly state that, and should be rewritten to use plural
instead of singular language.

Also, I just posted two more issues to the mailing list:

* The "Allow" header field is wrongly classified as an entity header.
* Unrecognized header fields should not be assumed to be entity headers.

These are not issues that the WG is currently working on (according to
the hope page of the wiki), and so I don't expect any immediate response
from the editors. But I don't want these issues to get lost or forgotten
either. I'd like to see them added to the issue tracker, and I am
willing to do it myself, but I've avoided doing because it seems to be
reserved for the editors' use.


- Brian

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 02:14:53 UTC