On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:59:08 +0100, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are we speaking about PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 here?
I never saw PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown, but PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 looks
good; so, yes.
Because if we are I am still behind it, (though it may need adapting as
i
Are we speaking about PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 here?
Because if we are I am still behind it, (though it may need adapting as
it was written
for the previous version of the spec). I also think we may get a +1
from Roy Fielding,
as I think this is just step 1 of his proposal. I also think we could
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:48 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there were no further discussion: This is a radical change to the
document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to make
it over the line. -Tim
I haven't seen it before, but think it's a nice proposal.
On 25 Jan 2005, at 12:17 am, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: This is a radical change to the
document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to
make it over the line. -Tim
-1
Architectural astronautics at its most textbook.
Graham
smime.p7s
Description: S/
If there were no further discussion: This is a radical change to the
document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to make
it over the line. -Tim
