Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion

Yes. Sorry for the delay; I've had them (and others) flagged, but my  
family has been sick for the last week and a half, so I've fallen  
behind. I should be getting things in today.

Cheers,


On 27/02/2008, at 1:14 PM, Brian Smith wrote:

>
> 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
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 21:38:40 UTC