- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 07:02:49 +1000
- To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 03:57, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > As with #781 on SH, we've had some discussion back and forth on this one, without clearly concluding the discussion. > > We'd like to get a sense of the group's consensus so we can move forward with the document. Please reply with which option you think will be be best option to be able to ship the document: > > A. Leave the document as-is, without specifying a URI type for SH; note that URI types can be added in a future revision > B. Specify a URI type for SH as a String > > Thanks, > Tommy (chair hat on) > A. To be clear, B means: add a new type, and add that to sh-item ? What does it say about syntactic structure and restrictions of the new type? What value do we get out of doing it (assuming that means "doing it now, quickly")? Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2019 21:03:19 UTC