- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:51:22 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 02.05.2019 08:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <0bab4850-fbe6-a318-71b2-a0e89a74ae74@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes > : > >> I don't think that the discussion in the github issue really concluded. >> It would be nice if Poul-Henning would follow-up on my replies. > > I really dont have anything to add to what I said a month ago. What I was referring to was the confusion about the syntax of the Link header field. > I can see the point, but not the compelling argument. > > First, It's not like we cannot move a URI in SH. Sh-string are > perfectly capable of that, and I put sh-binary in the spec as > "Kernighan-Escape"[1], should that fail. > > Second, If demarcating URIs in SH was important, somebody would > surely have spotted the deliberate mistake in the strawman syntax > I proposed a month ago ? I don't accept that as a serious argument. > So no, I'm 100% with Mark that URIs are not worth another several > months of nothing much happening to this draft. > ... Once again, please let's argue based on facts, not opinions. Unless you can prove that it'll take months to add this. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 06:51:58 UTC