At 03:40 04/11/05, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>2) It is not clear whether or not this should be Atom-specific. Even the erstwhile W3C liaison to the IETF suggests that maybe the IETF making a generic change to HTTP for all error reporting is OK.
Just some clarifications, assuming you are referring to my message at http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11139.html.
- Looking up 'erstwhile' at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary gives 'former, previous'. Together with Dan Connolly, I'm actually the *current* liaison from the W3C to the IETF.
- The statement was not made with my liaison hat on. I'm participating in this WG just for myself. If I ever make a statement as a liaison, I'll say so (but I'd probably talk directly to people in the IAB and the IESG in this case).
- I wasn't commenting on the desirability of a generic change to HTTP, but only on where such a change might happen, assuming it was desirable.
- This was based on past history and current status of the HTTP spec (an IETF Draft Standard, not a W3C Recommendation), and not on any assumptions one way or another about what the two mentioned parties might want to do.
You can guess for yourself whether I wrote *this* mail with my liaison hat on (because as a liaison, I have to make sure comments I make are not misunderstood to come from W3C as such) or as an individual (because as an individual, I have to make sure my comments as an individual are understood as such, and correctly). Take your pick :-).
Regards, Martin.
