W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > January 2008


From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:31:22 +1100
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>
Message-Id: <731F46D3-3447-45C6-8228-AD12ED8AD4CC@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:21 UTC