Hi Folks, Thanks for the engaged discussion during the Interim yesterday. Based on the feeling in the room, and some of my editorial judgment, I've prepared a new pull request that sits somewhere between option 2 and 3. It also borrows some of the ideas given in the chat to overcome the technical challenges I mentioned towards the end of the presentation. Please see https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1919, which includes a summary of things. I might be overlooking what people want to see wrt text treatment of RFC 3230 obsoletion. I don't think there's much to say personally. But I'm happy to take on board feedback in this area. I didn't address the bikeshed of field names either. A comment was made about name lengths, which I agree with. In the interest of focus, I think we should pursue that on a separate ticket and resolve that before we publish draft 08. Cheers, Lucas On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:41 PM Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Lucas! > > > Folks, see you later! > > R > > > Il mar 1 feb 2022, 15:18 Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> Thanks for feedback so far. I'll be presenting the different options at >> the HTTP Interim meeting session in a few hours. The slides might give a >> bit more insight in case anyone wants to do some preparation: see >> https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/interim-22-02/digests.pdf >> >> Cheers, >> Lucas >> >Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 09:50:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC