[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: -1 on the features draft

To: Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>, Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: -1 on the features draft
From: Joe Cheng <Joe.Cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:35:51 -0700
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
In-reply-to: <46EB2092.6080404@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <46EB2092.6080404@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acf3LafkaBHQkWE6SE6py5LDXNEorgAApSaA
Thread-topic: -1 on the features draft

What does "defining new status codes" mean? Does that give me a way
of knowing a server is not going to respect the Draft flag?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill de hOra
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:00 PM
To: Atom Protocol
Subject: -1 on the features draft

For the record.

Negotiation of features is non-trivial, and requires a formally
specified processing model, which is not supplied.  I suggest the WG
(and the IETF) would be better off defining new status codes.

cheers
Bill

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -1 on the features draft
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: -1 on the features draft
  - From: James M Snell

References:
- -1 on the features draft
  - From: Bill de hOra

Prev by Date: -1 on the features draft
Next by Date: Re: -1 on the features draft
Previous by thread: -1 on the features draft
Next by thread: Re: -1 on the features draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread