- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:31:22 +1100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, art.barstow@nokia.com, "Bertrand Le Roy" <Bertrand.Le.Roy@microsoft.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
That's not how the IETF works. Working groups as a whole can't formally review external documents; however, interested individuals can come and give expert feedback (which I think has happened here). There's also a formal liaison between W3C and IETF that can be used; pursuing that path would likely end up with an expert (or experts) being nominated to provide feedback. On 09/01/2008, at 10:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:43:51 +0100, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> > wrote: >> Art, correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe the conclusion of that >> discussion was *not* that OPTIONS is deemed rejected, but rather, >> that the group is seeking input from the HTTP community on what >> design to use? >> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-waf-minutes#item09 > > AFAICT OPTIONS is rejected until there's evidence that it can be > used. Requesting feedback from the HTTP WG on this has been done, > though so far the HTTP WG has not replied in any official manner. -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 04:32:19 UTC