RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay from Martin Gudgin on 2002-10-18 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from October 2002)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:57:56 -0700
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30940@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 18 October 2002 07:31
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Jacek Kopecky; Martin Gudgin; 
> XMLP Dist App
> Subject: Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some 
> unprocessed headers should stay
> 
> 
> Jean-Jacques (and Gudge):  I like this table a lot, and I think the 
> "assumed" column adds greatly to its value.  

I agree.

> Regardless of 
> what we think 
> of the merits of the proposal, this table helps to make clear 
> exactly what 
> the proposal is, and that surely helps the discussion.  I suggest we 
> document competing proposals (including the status quo)  in 
> similar form. 

Sounds like a great idea to me. Is the status quo the table below sans
relay?

> Depending on what we finally decide we want, it might be 
> worth using a 
> table of this sort in the actual recommendation.  

I think that's a great idea.

Gudge

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 13:58:31 UTC