- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:52:02 +1000
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18/07/2012, at 10:44 AM, James M Snell wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > James et al, > > Just a reminder: We're not here to re-define the semantics of HTTP; our current charter is about how it goes across the wire. We can talk about HTTP semantics on this list (and often do), but let's not get confused about the scope of the current discussion. > > > Hmm.. I'm not sure I see how discussion about the potential use of optional headers qualifies as "re-defining the semantics of HTTP". Re-defining, or adding to them in orthogonal ways. A session header can be a separate effort; there's no reason (AFAICT) to tie it to the protocol version. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 00:52:30 UTC