Re: new httpbis drafts (version 8) published on 10/26

I don't think we need to talk about HTTPbis, as interesting as it may
be. To the extent we do, it will naturally come up in the session
that's scheduled for HTTP semantics.

As far as I can tell, every HTTPbis change that relates to the TAG's
web architecture hot buttons is in the direction of moving closer to
AWWW.

Those who read what Noah quoted below should be aware that I followed
up this message a statement that I had initially misread the draft and
in fact I do *not* think that "the section on the http: scheme is
inconsistent on what the URI is supposed to identify."

-Jonathan

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> (switching to www-tag list)
>
> I'm in the process of closing down the agenda for next week's F2F and
> noticed this.  Right now it looks to me like HTTPbis is on the F2F agenda
> only for content sniffing and error handling.  Do you feel that any other
> discussion of the new draft is needed?  If so I'll schedule.  Thanks.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> Sent by: public-awwsw-request@w3.org
> 11/24/2009 08:02 AM
>
>        To:     AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
>        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>        Subject:        new httpbis drafts (version 8) published on 10/26
>
>
> See for example
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-08#section-2.6.1
> ,
> which is a pretty thorough rewrite of the http URI scheme
> registration. I suspect we have Roy to thank for this.
>
> We've been waiting for these drafts for quite a while; I haven't been
> monitoring this list as closely as I ought to and didn't see the
> announcement.
>
> I haven't checked what they ended up saying about GET/303.
>
> We really need to follow httpbis since that's the document we'll need
> to be consistent with, not the original 2616.
>
> The section on the http: scheme is inconsistent on what the URI is
> supposed to identify. I will send a comment to the list asking for a
> correction.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:23:43 UTC