Re: Comments on OPTIONS draft

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Franks: "Re: RE-VERSION"
• Previous message: Andreas Brusinsky: "Q:Which headers go with which Methods?"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Whitehead: "Comments on OPTIONS draft"
• Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Comments on OPTIONS draft"

> ... What would be 
> helpful is to provide a document which describes *exactly* what it
> means to have unconditional compliance with each RFC, and to have
> this information  be part of the registry maintained by IANA,
> much as each MIME type has an associated description of that type.

Yes, please. If the RFC really does self-describe compliance,
then 'a document which describes *exactly* ...' can be short.
Otherwise it might have to be longer.

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter

• Next message: John Franks: "Re: RE-VERSION"
• Previous message: Andreas Brusinsky: "Q:Which headers go with which Methods?"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Whitehead: "Comments on OPTIONS draft"
• Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Comments on OPTIONS draft"