ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2008 by date

Monday, 29 September 2008

Re: I-D candidate: draft-sharhalakis-httptz-04.txt IETF Drafts Team

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

must a partial response range be exact? A. Rothman
multipart/byteranges minimum number of parts A. Rothman

Monday, 22 September 2008

Re: Fwd: Status of Link header Julian Reschke
Fwd: Status of Link header Mark Nottingham
Informal last call: stale-if-error, stale-while-revalidate Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 21 September 2008

I-D candidate: draft-sharhalakis-httptz-04.txt Stefanos Harhalakis

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan

Friday, 19 September 2008

Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Roy T. Fielding
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry

Thursday, 18 September 2008

(issue 100) - security considerations Amit Klein

Wednesday, 17 September 2008

Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Jamie Lokier
Dublin minutes Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Stefan Eissing
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Brian McBarron
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
Re: [gears-eng] Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Brian McBarron
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham

Monday, 15 September 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Stefan Eissing
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Brian McBarron
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Serve page from different server without redirect Anton Blomberg
Re: X-Forwarded-For and IPv6? Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 13 September 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke

Friday, 12 September 2008

Re: Status of Link header Julian Reschke
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Brian McBarron
Re: Status of Link header Shane McCarron
Re: Status of Link header Mark Baker
Re: Status of Link header Julian Reschke
Re: Status of Link header Shane McCarron
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Status of Link header Mark Nottingham
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Re: how to get traction on an I-D Adrien de Croy
(issue 95) - security considerations Amit Klein
(issue 77) - concrete security issues Amit Klein
(issue 30) - concrete security-related examples Amit Klein
Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing Stephane Bortzmeyer
Re: how to get traction on an I-D Lisa Dusseault

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Jon Butler
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Jon Butler
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Yves Lafon
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Jon Butler
Issue 72 (method registry), was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-00.txt Julian Reschke
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Yves Lafon

Tuesday, 9 September 2008

Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP B.N. Kausik

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

how to get traction on an I-D Adrien de Croy
Indicating acceptable request entity encodings (was Re: Support for compression in XHR?) Kris Zyp

Tuesday, 9 September 2008

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Julian Reschke
Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Jamie Lokier
RE: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Brian Smith

Monday, 8 September 2008

Re: A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Ian Hickson
A proposal for Shared Dictionary Compression over HTTP Wei-Hsin Lee

Thursday, 4 September 2008

Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-02) Anthony Bryan
Re: [saag] Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing Peter Gutmann
Re: Content-Disposition in Google Chrome Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Robert Brewer
Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing Lisa Dusseault
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Julian Reschke
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Julian Reschke
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Julian Reschke
IE8's content-type authoritative parameter moved into a separate response header Julian Reschke
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Dave Cridland

Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: XML namespace URIs for IETF specifications (was RE: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01)) Julian Reschke
XML namespace URIs for IETF specifications (was RE: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01)) Brian Smith
Content-Disposition in Google Chrome Julian Reschke
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Henrik Nordstrom
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Henrik Nordstrom
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Julian Reschke
Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Dave Cridland
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Roy T. Fielding

Monday, 1 September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Robert Brewer
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan

Sunday, 31 August 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
[New issue] Vary requirement level inconsistency Henrik Nordstrom

Friday, 29 August 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Kris Zyp
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Re: planning publication of -04 drafts Julian Reschke
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Re: Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Mark Nottingham
Re: Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Alan Dean
Re: Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 28 August 2008

RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Yves Lafon
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) William A. Rowe, Jr.
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Brian Smith
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Brian Smith
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Brian Smith
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Yves Lafon
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Dan Winship
Re: RFC2231 encoding in HTTP: whitespace handling Frank Ellermann
Re: RFC2231 encoding in HTTP: whitespace handling Julian Reschke
Re: RFC2231 encoding in HTTP: whitespace handling Frank Ellermann
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Roy T. Fielding
Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128) Frank Ellermann
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Brian Smith

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Roy T. Fielding
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Julian Reschke
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Brian Smith
Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Julian Reschke
RE: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Brian Smith
RFC2231 encoding in HTTP: whitespace handling Julian Reschke
X-Forwarded-For and IPv6? Adrian Chadd
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Martin Duerst
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon

Monday, 25 August 2008

Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Julian Reschke

Sunday, 24 August 2008

planning publication of -04 drafts Julian Reschke

Friday, 22 August 2008

RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Martin Duerst
Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Julian Reschke

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Dan Winship
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Julian Reschke
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Jamie Lokier
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Dan Winship
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Julian Reschke
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Daniel Stenberg
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 19 August 2008

OT: historical file systems (was: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123)) Frank Ellermann
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Frank Ellermann
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Brian Smith
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Frank Ellermann

Monday, 18 August 2008

Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Brian Smith
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith

Sunday, 17 August 2008

Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Henrik Nordstrom

Saturday, 16 August 2008

Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Frank Ellermann
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129) Frank Ellermann
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Frank Ellermann
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123) Frank Ellermann

Friday, 15 August 2008

Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt Frank Ellermann
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) William A. Rowe, Jr.
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Roy T. Fielding
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Brian Smith
RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Brian Smith
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Dave Kristol
Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke

Thursday, 14 August 2008

Wednesday, 13 August 2008

Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
Re: opaque parameter in the Authorization request header Frank Ellermann
Re: Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Mark Baker
Re: Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Mark Nottingham
Re: opaque parameter in the Authorization request header Henrik Nordstrom
opaque parameter in the Authorization request header Evgeniy Khramtsov

Tuesday, 12 August 2008

Re: https URI scheme Henrik Nordstrom

Sunday, 10 August 2008

RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
Re: https URI scheme Frank Ellermann
HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme Julian Reschke
Re: https URI scheme Alexey Melnikov
Re: https URI scheme Paul Hoffman
https URI scheme Julian Reschke

Friday, 8 August 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Larry Masinter
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 7 August 2008

RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Brian Smith
Re: Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126) Julian Reschke
Re: Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Henrik Nordstrom
RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Henrik Nordstrom

Wednesday, 6 August 2008

RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Lisa Dusseault
RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Yves Lafon
Re: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Julian Reschke
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Julian Reschke
RE: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Julian Reschke
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Jamie Lokier
Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Julian Reschke
Re: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Stefan Eissing

Tuesday, 5 August 2008

RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Robert Brewer
Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)) Brian Smith
Re: Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126) Julian Reschke
Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126) Julian Reschke
"Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109) Julian Reschke
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Jamie Lokier
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Yves Lafon
RE: issue 85 - range unit extensions Brian Smith
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
Re: qvalue * Frank Ellermann
Re: qvalue * Henrik Nordstrom

Monday, 4 August 2008

Re: qvalue * Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue * Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue * Frank Ellermann
Re: qvalue * Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue *, was: Re: Issue 113 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue *, was: Issue 113 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Issue 113 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue * Frank Ellermann
RE: qvalue * Robert Brewer
Re: qvalue * Frank Ellermann
Re: qvalue * Adrien de Croy
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: qvalue * ryah dahl
Re: qvalue * William A. Rowe, Jr.
RE: qvalue * Robert Brewer
Re: qvalue * Julian Reschke
Re: qvalue * Frank Ellermann
Re: qvalue *, was: Re: Issue 113 Julian Reschke
qvalue *, was: Re: Issue 113 Frank Ellermann
Re: Issue 113 Yves Lafon
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke
Re: qvalue *, was: Issue 113 Julian Reschke
Re: qvalue *, was: Issue 113 Frank Ellermann
qvalue *, was: Issue 113 Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 113 Frank Ellermann
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke

Sunday, 3 August 2008

Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Frank Ellermann
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Frank Ellermann

Saturday, 2 August 2008

Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Frank Ellermann
Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Bill de hOra
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Felix Sasaki
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke

Friday, 1 August 2008

Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Frank Ellermann
Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke
Review of Content Transformation Guidelines Last Call? Dominique Hazael-Massieux
RE: i107 Brian Smith
RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke
RE: i107 Yves Lafon

Thursday, 31 July 2008

RE: i107 Brian Smith
RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
RE: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Henrik Nordstrom
RE: i107 Brian Smith
RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Proposed patch for issue 71 (example for ETag matching) Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Brian Smith
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
RE: i107 Brian Smith
Issue 125, was: [new issue] p2 10.4 Location Content-Location reference Julian Reschke
Re: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
[new issue] p2 10.4 Location Content-Location reference Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Henrik Nordstrom
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: i107 Henrik Nordstrom

Tuesday, 29 July 2008

Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Robert Collins

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Felix Sasaki
Re: Proposal: i67 - quoting charsets Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 29 July 2008

Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Adrien de Croy
Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Roy T. Fielding
RE: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Jeff Currier
Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Julian Reschke
Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Jeff Currier
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Mark Baker
Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Frank Ellermann
Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's. Jeff Currier
RE: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Brian Smith
RE: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Brian Smith
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
Issue 124: "entity value" terminology, was: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Julian Reschke
RE: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Brian Smith
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Mark Baker
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
RE: i107 Brian Smith
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Mark Baker
Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags) Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Mark Baker
Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
Proposed patch for issue 71 (example for ETag matching) Julian Reschke
Re: #106: vary header type Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTPbis WG meeting tomorrow (Tue) Frank Ellermann
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Roy T. Fielding
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: i107 Mark Nottingham

Monday, 28 July 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Frank Ellermann
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
RE: i107 Brian Smith
RE: i107 Brian Smith
Re: i107 Mark Nottingham
Re: i107 Mark Nottingham
RE: i107 Brian Smith
#106: vary header type Mark Nottingham
i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: i107 Mark Nottingham
Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Frank Ellermann
PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Mark Nottingham
issue 85 - range unit extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTPbis WG meeting tomorrow (Tue) Frank Ellermann
HTTPbis WG meeting tomorrow (Tue) Julian Reschke

Friday, 25 July 2008

Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 22 July 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke
Re: HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) Frank Ellermann
HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) Julian Reschke

Monday, 21 July 2008

Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry

Sunday, 20 July 2008

Re: http implementations (Google Docs) Mark Nottingham
Re: http implementations (Google Docs) Mark Nottingham
Re: http implementations (Google Docs) Daniel Stenberg
http implementations (Google Docs) Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Frank Ellermann
Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?) Julian Reschke

Saturday, 19 July 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Julian Reschke

Friday, 18 July 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions Charles Fry
Re: Issue 72, was: Status of IANA Considerations (registrations and registries) -- issues 40, 59, 72, 79 Julian Reschke

Thursday, 17 July 2008

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02 Jonathan Rees

Tuesday, 15 July 2008

Re: Issue 72, was: Status of IANA Considerations (registrations and registries) -- issues 40, 59, 72, 79 Julian Reschke

Monday, 14 July 2008

Re: Resolve issue 98? Julian Reschke
Re: Resolve issue 98? Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 72, was: Status of IANA Considerations (registrations and registries) -- issues 40, 59, 72, 79 Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 13 July 2008

I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-02.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Saturday, 12 July 2008

Re: Issue 72, was: Status of IANA Considerations (registrations and registries) -- issues 40, 59, 72, 79 Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Re: i28 proposed replacement text Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Re: the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Roy T. Fielding
RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Chris Wilson
Re: any error-free web pages at all? [was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea] T.V Raman
Re: URI/IRI vs HTML-URL Henry S. Thompson
Re: the "HTML URL" issue Anne van Kesteren
Re: the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Stefan Eissing
RE: the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Justin James
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Frank Ellermann
Re: URI/IRI vs HTML-URL, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Robert J Burns
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Stefan Eissing
Re: URI/IRI vs HTML-URL, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: URI/IRI vs HTML-URL, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Martin Duerst
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
the "HTML URL" issue, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Draft Dublin HTTPbis agenda Mark Nottingham

Monday, 7 July 2008

Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Henrik Nordstrom
RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Henrik Nordstrom
Fwd: I-D Action:draft-jennings-http-srv-00.txt Mark Nottingham
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Boris Zbarsky
Re: any error-free web pages at all? [was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea] Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)
RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Justin James
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Henrik Nordstrom
RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Henrik Nordstrom
any error-free web pages at all? [was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea] Dan Connolly
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea David Morris
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Boris Zbarsky
Issue 119, was: CONNECT Julian Reschke
URI/IRI vs HTML-URL, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
RE: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Justin James
Re: CONNECT Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Henrik Nordstrom
CONNECT Julian Reschke
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Stefan Eissing
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Sam Ruby

Sunday, 6 July 2008

Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Frank Ellermann
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Geoffrey Sneddon
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Sam Ruby
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Eric Lawrence

Saturday, 5 July 2008

Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Sam Ruby
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Sam Ruby
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Boris Zbarsky
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Julian Reschke
RE: i28 proposed replacement text Robert Brewer
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Sam Ruby
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Henrik Nordstrom
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Julian Reschke
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Frank Ellermann
Re: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Julian Reschke
Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea Ian Hickson

Friday, 4 July 2008

Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Dave Singer
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Sam Ruby
Re: Namespace dispatching in XHTML, XML Jamie Lokier
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Justin James
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Michael A. Puls II
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Boris Zbarsky
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Adam Barth
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Adam Barth
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Karl Dubost
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Adam Barth
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter William A. Rowe, Jr.
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Justin James
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter William A. Rowe, Jr.
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Justin James
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Karl Dubost

Thursday, 3 July 2008

Namespace dispatching in XHTML, XML Mark Baker
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Lachlan Hunt
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter L. David Baron
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter John Kemp
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Jamie Lokier
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Sam Ruby
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Roy T. Fielding
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Jamie Lokier
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Dave Singer
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Dave Singer
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Justin James
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Daniel Stenberg
RE: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Justin James
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Jamie Lokier
Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02 Phil Archer
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Frank Ellermann
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02 Frank Ellermann
Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02 Mark Nottingham
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter William A. Rowe, Jr.

Wednesday, 2 July 2008

Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Frank Ellermann
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Robert Collins
Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Henrik Nordstrom
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Julian Reschke
Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter Julian Reschke
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Henrik Nordstrom
Re: i28 proposed replacement text Yves Lafon

Last message date: Monday, 29 September 2008 16:44:17 UTC