RE: MUST use Content-Base
Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:00:42 -0800
Nothing like defining current implementations as broken to really get
companies excited about the open standards process.
"Be standards compliant" I said. "It's an RFC" I said. Sigh...
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [SMTP:frystyk@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 11:28 AM
> To: Foteos Macrides; koen@win.tue.nl
> Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: MUST use Content-Base
>
> At 12:49 1/7/98 -0500, Foteos Macrides wrote:
>
> > If there is at lease one other client besides Lynx which has
> >implemented it, I do not think that it should be deleted. The
> requirement
> >is for "two independent implementations" ;( NOT "implementation by two
> >major commercial clients", though they both should implement it to be
> >HTTP/1.1 compliant );
>
> Libwww [1] does it as well, so I think we are all set :)
>
> Henrik
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Library/
> --
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
> World Wide Web Consortium
> http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk