W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > August 2009

RE: AGENDA for today's call

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:06:15 +0200
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602EDCB9BF7@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Dan,

Several people, including myself have sent regrets.

-- Kai 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group 
> [mailto:Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: AGENDA for today's call
> Importance: High
> 
> Hi all --
> 
> Sorry for not getting this out in a timely fashion! :)
> 
> We will indeed be holding a call today --
> 
> Details as follows:
> 
> Logistics
> -----
> Chair: DKA
> Team contact: francois
> Known regrets: Jo
> 
> Date: 2009-08-18T1330Z
>   0630 US Pacific
>   0930 US Eastern
>   1430 UK/Ireland
>   1530 CET
>   1630 Helsinki
>   2230 South Korea
> 
> IRC: irc://irc.w3.org:6665#bpwg
> 
> 1. CT Guidelines - Remaining Actions
> -----
> X-header IETF discussion (see below)
> Issues and actions: 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
> 
> 2. Addendum to BP (BP1.5) - Status update
> -----
> Old actions: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/9
> 
> 3. MWABP - Status update
> -----
> Issues and actions: 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
> 
> 4. Actions and Issues
> -----
> By product:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products
> 
> 5. AOB
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/08/2009 10:41, "François Daoust" <fd@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > For group review. Dan (I think you chair tomorrow's call), 
> could you 
> > add this to tomorrow's agenda?
> > 
> > There was some discussion on the IETF mailing-list last week on the 
> > use of "X-" to prefix the HTTP header field.
> > 
> > Conclusion is:
> > 1. I should be able to proceed with registration of the HTTP header 
> > fields in the provisional registry.
> > 2. Moving from provisional to permanent is unlikely to be 
> an easy task.
> > It will require wide review within IETF, and some consensus withing 
> > the IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group) that "X-" 
> HTTP header 
> > fields may be introduced in the permanent registry, or an approved 
> > IETF proposed standard that defines the HTTP header fields.
> > 
> > I propose to move ahead with registration in the 
> provisional registry 
> > as expected, but note I doubt we can move to Recommendation if the 
> > HTTP header fields are not permanently registered.
> > 
> > Latest message so far available at:
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-message-headers/curr
ent/msg00107.htm>
> l
> > 
> > The whole thread is currently the last one in:
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-message-headers/current/thre
> > ads.html
> > 
> > Francois.
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 12:08:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC