Hi Mark, I realize the question is part process and part technical, but here's my wish for the technical portion: I'm hoping that whatever is done can be additive and optional, such that it can enable new capabilities without disrupting existing usage of 4287 (only).
This is one of the reasons why I prefer that we use optional type qualifiers (Option A) rather than deprecating one mime type and creating two new ones (Option B). Cheers! -- Kyle On 12/12/06, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would the relationship of that document be to RFC4287? Cheers, On 2006/12/11, at 7:32 PM, James M Snell wrote: > The I-D would be an individual draft, not a WG draft. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
