- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:46:01 +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>
Again, I hope we're not voting. My argument: given that the whole point of SH is to have strongly interoperable, crisply defined data models, and that anything beyond "it's a string" is a minefield regarding URIs, the prudent thing to do here is to punt on this until we're more confident. It's entirely possible to do this in a future revision / extension, and we really need to ship this spec. Cheers, > On 15 May 2019, at 3:54 am, 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) > >> On May 1, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> (Editor hat on) >> >> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/782> >> >> PHK and I have discussed this, and I think we agree that this issue should be closed without any change to the specification. >> >> Any further discussion? We'd like to get this spec shipped. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 08:46:32 UTC