- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:04:40 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Hi, > > actually we *do* track this separately; the issue is > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113>, and we > thought > we were done with it almost a year ago. See discussion around > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http- > wg/2008JulSep/0214.html>. Thanks for this. I meant as an open issue. I scanned the list but didn't see this one. > > The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm > that > actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, > we're > not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one? > I responded in my response to John Cowan. I think I would want to reopen this issue. Compatibility is a Good Thing, but as I said, I think language negotiation has evolved somewhat and you could incorporate more of 4647 rather than strictly requiring Basic Filtering. Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 20:05:18 UTC