> The compatibility/deployment issues are discussed over here: > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-308-01.html#rfc.section.4>. >
I think this fills a hole, is well thought out, and is being done cooperatively in the appropriate standards body. Julian has worked very hard at filing down the inconsistencies in the http space. > > So the Internet Draft could proceed to LC and publication without any > implementation in browsers. I'd actually frown on that. One of the nice things rapid release and silent updates give us is the freedom to innovate without being locked into those choices for ever. Experience is good - data trumps documents. The IETF has always thought so. Being able to checkpoint at 6 week intervals lets us undo a bad idea before it becomes a defacto standard - that's much harder when its more than a draft we're talking about. > > I do not expect Firefox to go ahead and say "yes, this is a great idea", > and implement it in the -12 time frame. But what would be useful is to > get feedback of the kind "this is harmless, and we'll put it in once the > IESG has approved the spec", or "OMG, this can't be implemented, > because...", or something in between. > I'm happy to proceed here when the secreview is complete. Its good for us to lead the way. We should do more of that :) [and I'm glad we don't do default 3xx redirs :)] _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
