See:
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Anne responded in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
but I don't think that moved us forward; I wasn't suggesting we reuse
the PI syntax, and figuring out an extensibility story is not
something you want to do at the last minute (in this case, if you do,
you'll have to change the syntax of the entire header to make it
extensible).
I also haven't seen any rationale behind keeping the header as it is.
On 28/01/2008, at 1:06 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Mark,
In <http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> you asserted the syntax in the AC4CSR spec is "still suboptimal".
Anne said: Didn't we fix this? If not, I'd need more detail.
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hixie said: As far as I'm aware Anne has fixed all the issues that
were raised on the syntax; if you have any specific concerns, I'd
recommend reraising them.
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Since I have not seen your response to Anne or Hixie (and if I
missed it, please send us a pointer to your response), if you
consider this syntax issue still open, please provide details as
Anne requested.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
