Mark Nottingham wrote: > Looking back at this discussion, I think we have agreement to drop > 'present' (as per Roy), and add the "When a resource's > representations..." sentence. The current text in draft 06 is different from the one that was discussed in earlier emails; so I'll have to re-read the thread and compare what's in now with what's in RFC 2616... > I don't see consensus to add language about canonicalising request > headers (beyond the process described in p6 2.6). That's issue <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/147>, right? Do we expect consensus to emerge in the future (that is, do we leave the issue open)? BR, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 06:44:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC