Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:54:32 +0200, Niall O'Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 12 Jun 2008, at 12:25, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The second question is one of resources and client complexity. I am
>>> meeting resistance to the idea of hav
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:13 +0200, Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Is there a particular reason that DNS is a better mechanism than HTTP,
>> in your view? Or is that an implementation detail?
>
> The DNS occurred to me because it's a
On Jun 12, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen wrote:
>
> - Behind (very) closed firewalls, where all access go through a
> HTTP-only
> proxy. No DNS for external addresses is available. For that matter,
> when
> going through a proxy you have no way of knowing if the DNS
> available
On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Is there a particular reason that DNS is a better mechanism than HTTP,
> in your view? Or is that an implementation detail?
The DNS occurred to me because it's already used for carrying domain
names, and also because I've been doing DNS for a
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:54:32 +0200, Niall O'Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2008, at 12:25, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> The second question is one of resources and client complexity. I am
>> meeting resistance to the idea of having the existing list regularly
>> dynamically downl
On 12 Jun 2008, at 12:25, Gervase Markham wrote:
The second question is one of resources and client complexity. I am
meeting resistance to the idea of having the existing list regularly
dynamically downloaded, which would be the simplest method of
providing
more frequent updates than the six
Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:26 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what we
>> have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my
>> mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.
>
> Putting the
Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>> No. I don't need to sell you the idea. The idea doesn't stand or
>> fall on the opinion of this mailing list.
>
> Did you really say this ? Did I read this correctly ?
>
> No, can't be. I don't think Mozilla wants to insult all the IETF
> experts that have voluntarily
> Are you sure that they do not do the same? I tried to promote
> Konqueror but it has apparently the same (or even worse) bug than
> Firefox. And my bug report for Konqueror was closed immediately, which
> seems to indicate that the Mozilla people are not the only one with
> deaf ears.
Yes, but
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0200,
Antoin Verschuren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
> Perhaps it's time to move back to promoting Opera again.
Are you sure that they do not do the same? I tried to promote
Konqueror but it has apparently the same (or even wor
> No. I don't need to sell you the idea. The idea doesn't stand or fall on
> the opinion of this mailing list.
Did you really say this ?
Did I read this correctly ?
No, can't be. I don't think Mozilla wants to insult all the IETF experts that
have voluntarily helped them make a living in the fi
11 matches
Mail list logo
