- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:36:15 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 3 Jul 2014, at 4:29 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 2014-07-03 00:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> PPS: >> I'm looking for co-authors for a jumboframe extension draft. > > Do you really need them? if you publish a sensible draft I expect several of us not liking CONTINUATION would implement. Would you (or any of the other Jumbo advocates) mind explaining why on its own it’s better than CONTINUATION, beyond syntactic sugar? AIUI you have to buffer and decode the entire header set in either case; is there some other aspect where it’s significantly better? Apologies if that’s been covered already, but it’s a long conversation... Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 06:36:48 UTC