- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:27:01 +1100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
That's reasonable, Amos; I'll start a separate thread to ask for positions on status quo vs. Jeff's proposal vs. Willy's. Cheers, > On 22 Oct 2014, at 1:31 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 22/10/2014 1:53 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> This thread seems to be going off into defining an extension, which >> is entirely appropriate. >> >> I'm not seeing broad acclaim for making any changes to the existing >> scheme in the spec itself; in particular, Jeff's proposal failed to >> get wide support. >> >> So, I think we can mark #578 as closed without action. > > I see only an extension for the unrelated timestamp things. > > > Can we try seriously for a consensus on just Willys' patch to separate > the tables? > > Other proposals got their own "vote" threads and many days before a > consensus/non-consensus was declared. This one has only just had 25hrs > buried at the back end of a long heated discussion. > > It is distinct from Jeff's reversal proposal and offers benefits to > all participant "camps" over both that and the status quo. I fear it > has got lost amidst this long thread on a rushed timescale. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 03:27:30 UTC