+0. I have no particular agenda on this other than helping to move it forward if that's what folks want. I will note, however, that the overall response to PaceResurrectAutodiscovery was positive and there seemed (to me at least) to be interest in at least discussing the future of the draft. So please stop trying so hard to kill it before folks get a chance to actually think it over and discuss it. Your opinion counts but it's not the only one that matters.
- James Robert Sayre wrote: > [snip] > > == Abstract == > > Don't move forward with the autodiscovery draft. > > == Status == > > Proposed > > == Rationale == > > At this point there seems to be no reason for the autodiscovery draft to > exist, since the WHAT-WG has ably covered the subject in Web > Applications 1.0. > > http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#alternate0 > > Reasons given for the continued existence of the IETF draft have been > non-technical doubletalk. > > == Proposal == > > Stop work on the autodiscovery draft. > > == Impacts == > > Reduces mailing list traffic and standards noise. >
