Good to know. I could push the draft forward with Informational status.
That would allow us to finalize it and get it an RFC# but it wouldn't be
standards track. Would that be sufficient?
- James
James Holderness wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
As with several of the other drafts I put out a while back, I let
these expire because at the time there was no solid consensus or
significant demonstrated interest. Was hoping that someone other than
myself would go out and get some implementation experience on these
issues. I can certain help to move them forward if there's enough
interest.
FWIW, I've had a working implementation of the deleted-entry element
in an internal build of Snarfer which I've been using for months now.
It should be more-or-less compatible with drafts 1, 4 and 5.
However I believe we decided against including the code in our public
release because the future direction of the spec seemed very much up
in the air at the time. If the spec ever did get finalised in a form
resembling draft 5, it would be easy to ship it in our next release
(although, to be honest, I'm not sure that's going to happen anytime
soon).
Regards
James
