Ian Hickson wrote:
> Note: I have not been looking at Mail, News, IRC, IPv6, P3P, SSL, HTTP
> Digest Auth and related RFCs, IMAP and POP, the various multipart/*
> formats, data:, XBL or XUL very closely.
I'd like to see Digest Auth supported, and i think it'd be ok if someone worked on
LanMan. We should be TLS1.0 happy or whatever, and afaik we are -- i haven't checked.
wrt IMAP we need to be UW-imapd friendly i think ..
FTP support should probably have very few bugs, i think we have a few right now that
should be addressed.
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Does anyone disagree with:
> IRC, IPv6, P3P: no hard targets (only "don't break forwards
> compatibility") for Mozilla 1.0.
IRC is up to rginda, and imo doesn't matter to mozilla1.0, he can release chatzilla1.0
at a later date and make it available.
P3P I would prefer backed out
IPv6 We should support on w32, solaris, osx, beos and linux.
Greg Miller wrote:
> As a general rule of thumb, I'd say no hard targets for anything that
> requires that something be done which is outside the scope of the
> Mozilla project in order to be useful.
This is a _bad_ rule of thumb.
> IPv6, for example, requires that OS vendors, networking equipment
> vendors, ISPs, etc. roll it out.
If no one clients (browsers) support ipv6 then there is less incentive to roll out
ipv6 support which means that we have a chicken egg issue. I was using ipv6 between
my solaris8intel and windows2000 boxes last summer and I could use it as a university
student last year because of internet2.
> P3P will probably start to happen now that MS is apparently going to
> be supporting it very soon, but it hasn't happened yet--so I'd lump
> that one in as well.
IBM is also somewhat interested in this.
The fact that only big corporations seem interested in P3P worries me because i don't
see any benefits for consumers. but this should be discussed in another thread or in
the bugzilla bug.
