- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:04:06 +0100
- To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Daniel Barclay'" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] > Sent: 03 May 2001 19:35 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'Daniel Barclay'; 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction > > > On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:20:51AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > > > > > > > Also, would we qualify as a "standards track document within the IETF > > > > Applications Area."? > > > > > > No, we're not a document. :-) > > > > Ok... :-) re-phrasing then: > > > > Will a future XMLP spec qualify as an "standards track document within the > > IETF Applications Area."? > > The way that we're doing this in P3P was to author a compact, minimal > internet-draft explaining the semantics and relevence of what is > being registered (an HTTP header in our case; actually, there isn't > an HTTP header registry, but same principle), and then pursue that on > an individual-submission standard track. This would mean that the > entire SOAP/XMLP effort would not need to go through the IETF > process, just a document explaining what we're doing that needs to > get registered. Cool... just a base we need to cover *if* we need XMLP/SOAP specific HTTP status codes. > -- > Mark Nottingham > http://www.mnot.net/ Thanks, stuart
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 05:04:25 UTC