- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:54:55 -0800
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
"applications" is vague... do we mean services (URIs), or devices (clients, servers and intermediaries)? On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > What if we use the phrase "co-exist with existing HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 > applications." instead of "interoperate with existing HTTP applications." > This also makes it more clear that we are talking about well-behaved > applications. > > Henrik > > > We substantially concur with this requirement. However, the > > phrase "Any protocol binding ... should demonstrate that it > > can interoperate with > > existing HTTP applications." seems ambiguous and overlay > > broad. Surely > > there are many http applications out there (mp3 players?) for > > which XP > > might prove to be completely irrelavant. > -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 18:57:35 UTC