- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:43:58 +1100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
1) You'll have to change it anyway if you want to support extensions. I haven't seen a discussion of this yet. 2) Introducing new syntactic constructs requires people to write new parsers for them, which can also introduce errors. I'm surprised that implementers hadn't already found the problems I pointed out; that suggests there may be other issues that they haven't seen. Reusing an existing syntax that's widely used avoids syntactic problems, leaving the WG to concentrate on the semantics which are in their domain of expertise. On 29/01/2008, at 11:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:24:18 +0100, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com > > wrote: >> I also haven't seen any rationale behind keeping the header as it is. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/ > 0273.html > > Making changes increases the risk for introducing errors. I'd like > to restrict changes to those that substantially improve the > situation, such as using delta-seconds instead of HTTP-date. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 00:44:54 UTC