On May 22, 2006, at 10:39, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
May I raise the fear that both REX and XUP might get affected by
XQuery Update ? I've just heard about it:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xqupdate/
To me XUpdate tasted much tinier but with the power of XQuery
nowadays...
No, they are in
I *think* this was covered in the omnibus proposal for send
setRequestHeader that I made a while back...
On 2006/05/16, at 12:54 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
Anne,
Perhaps you did not see my response to Jonas' message:
So then you just need to add something to the spec that makes it
That's not my recollection of where the WG ended up at the F2F; I was
under the impression that someone was going to explain what the
security issues are, exactly.
I did have an AI to list HTTP methods, but Julian has done it for me ;)
This Mozilla bug might be interesting in the context of the
discussion about controlling caches, etc.;
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331825
--
Mark Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's my fault. When I started looking at similar solutions existing
elsewhere to see if the need had already been addressed, I looked in
many places... but not W3C! XUP looks like a very nice start for a
specification, it's a shame that while W3C accepted your Member
Submission (back then
sorry folks, my laptop died a grisly death and I am busy trying to resurrect it
and travelling. A bit of a tough baancing act, and I think it will eat the
telecon time :(
cheers
Chaals
On 5/22/06, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that was ACTION-145 on Gorm.
Doh, I meant to paste this;
http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/track/actions/145
