- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>
> Silvia,
>
>> Nice work! In fact, I think the F2F was really very productive and I
>> am very sorry I wasn't able to attend.
>
> Thanks! And yes: very productive and sad that we didn't meet F2F - next time
> maybe? ;)
>
>
>> A little feedback on this:
>> I think the response validation needs more details. We need to specify
>> - just like we specified what a valid media fragment URI is - what a
>> valid response looks like and refer to that specification.
>>
>
> Certainly. The problem is, as you know, that we have not yet agreed upon how
> the HTTP communication will actually work, that is, which header fields are
> used (have to be defined in HTTPbis, etc.).
What needs to be defined in HTTPbis? Extra headers are to be registered
using the provided registry, but no new headers will be introduced in
httpis.
> Hence I took a top-down approach, putting stuff in there that occurred
> stable to me already and left out the details where we still have to decide
> how to do this. As time goes by and we agree on the details, these will be
> added, rest assured ;)
>
> Further details, comments, notes, proposals are welcome - hey, its a Wiki,
> right? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 07:09:09 UTC