Tim Bray wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contrary to that, XML processors do not resolve namespace URIs, they are
purely used as identifiers.
That's certainly how things are supposed to work. It may or may not be how
they
actually work.
I
On 29 feb 2008, at 15:34, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What's going on with the preparations to turn off IPv4 at IETF-71?
It's been really quiet surrounding that topic since the initial
discussion.
It's good to hear that work is going on behind the scenes.
So... does anyone know a place to
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:50:58PM +,
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
The latest RISKS gibes an example
The actual original reference is:
http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic
Perhaps the security considerations
The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering the following document again now that
important dependencies are ready:
- 'INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS'
draft-ietf-imapext-sort-19.txt as a Proposed Standard
Hi Mark,
I've just reread section 7 of -19 and found
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:35AM -0800,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 108 lines which said:
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by March 4, 2008.
That's one week only, for the charter of a group which may change an
important Standards
On 3 mar 2008, at 14.38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on perceived defects?
Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real,
for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena),
they should *not* be addressed by
Let's step back for a moment.
The purpose of sorting in mail clients is so that users can find
messages they're looking for.
After sorting on INTERNALDATE, the user skips down the Received column
to the range that their target messages fall in. And, voila! The
messages are there.
After
Dan:
The draft can't be changed any more.
But there's good news. Like you, I have a database, and I've implemented
SORT. It took less than a day. A part of those hours was wasted time,
because as you point out, only Mark's client wants the kind of address
sorting which the draft offers. But
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Dan Karp wrote:
Once the draft makes it to Proposed Standard, getting a second draft out
with a variant version of these sorts becomes exponentially harder.
When there is both a de facto standard that has existed for over 10 years,
and a completely incompatible de jure
Stephane,
In addition, experience has shown a number of real or perceived
defects or inadequacies with the protocol.
Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on perceived defects?
Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real,
for instance, if they are FUD
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200,
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have
only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a
particular issue is really a defect.
Tim Bray wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contrary to that, XML processors do not resolve namespace URIs, they are
purely used as identifiers.
That's certainly how things are supposed to work. It may or may not be
how they
actually
RFC4395: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes
Registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
Topic: Registration requests for URIs containing telephone numbers
The IETF has found that there are many special cases when dealing
with telephone numbers as identifiers
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
...
Yes. I suggest (continuing the first paragraph of section 7):
On the client side, implementors MUST use the existing solutions to
limit the rate of access to the origin server. They include:
* ability to use HTTP caching ([RFC 2616], section 13)
* local
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:00:54PM +0100,
Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
Hm, we are talking about XML namespace names, not DTD URIs.
I do not see the difference. XML catalogs, for instance, are also
explicitely made for XML namespace names.
But,
On Mon Mar 3 15:03:20 2008, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
--On March 2, 2008 11:07:50 PM -0800 Dan Karp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The purpose of sorting in mail clients is so that users can find
messages they're looking for.
Actually you need to look at your use cases in more detail because
a
Speaking as email client user:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Mar 3 15:03:20 2008, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
--On March 2, 2008 11:07:50 PM -0800 Dan Karp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The purpose of sorting in mail clients is so that users can find
messages they're looking for.
Actually
Thanks to Stephane for pointing out the short fuse on this. I personally
believe that a longer discussion and a cc to working groups like EAI
and DNSEXT would have gotten more adequate review.
Comments on the text below.
At 9:57 AM -0800 2/26/08, The IESG wrote:
A new IETF working group has
RFC4395: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes
Registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
Topic: Registration requests for URIs containing telephone numbers
The IETF has found that there are many special cases when dealing
with telephone numbers as identifiers
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the 71st IETF
meeting in Philadelphia. We have been scheduled to meet at 1620 in
the afternoon of Wednesday, March 12 in Salon I. Note that we have
a very tight time-slot between the last afternoon session and the
plenary, so please be on
20 matches
Mail list logo
