1) You'll have to change it anyway if you want to support extensions.
I haven't seen a discussion of this yet.
2) Introducing new syntactic constructs requires people to write new
parsers for them, which can also introduce errors.
I'm surprised that implementers hadn't already found the problems I
pointed out; that suggests there may be other issues that they haven't
seen. Reusing an existing syntax that's widely used avoids syntactic
problems, leaving the WG to concentrate on the semantics which are in
their domain of expertise.
On 29/01/2008, at 11:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:24:18 +0100, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I also haven't seen any rationale behind keeping the header as it is.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/
0273.html
Making changes increases the risk for introducing errors. I'd like
to restrict changes to those that substantially improve the
situation, such as using delta-seconds instead of HTTP-date.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
