Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)

Personally --

*If* we think we're going to ship Display Strings and can agree to do so, I'd prefer to do it in this revision, rather than having a third revision of Structured Fields.

Figuring out consensus on that is out of my hands, though. Tommy, thank you for your service :)

Cheers,


> On 30 Apr 2023, at 2:07 pm, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Julian. We can certainly wait for your review and implementation update to the end of the week before processing anything 
> 
> Regarding non-ascii strings, those remain outside of the scope the WG agreed upon for *this* revision (but can certainly be part of another revision). If we as a WG collectively believe the current revision effort cannot ship without expanding the scope, then that needs to be raised and agreed upon as part of this WGLC.
> 
> Best,
> Tommy
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2023, at 10:27 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> ´╗┐Am 29.04.2023 um 05:04 schrieb Tommy Pauly:
>>> As a reminder, our WGLC is scheduled to end next week. Please send in
>>> any issues, and please reply to this email with your reviews!
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tommy
>> 
>> Hi Tommy,
>> 
>> I'm planning to review the spec (and update my implementation) over the
>> course of next week (which is indeed past the LC date).
>> 
>> Furthermore, we also need to come to a conclusion on
>> 
>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2494
>> 
>> which (AFAIR) has some remaining points to resolve.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Sunday, 30 April 2023 13:12:21 UTC