On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:27:53 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. AFAIK, Basic and Digest are not interoperable outside of ASCII,
and this specification provides no guidance on the encoding of the
credentials. Is there anything useful we can say here? Maybe just warn
that it isn't
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:08:58 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK, I just tested with IE7 and Firefox2, which support it. I know that
IE6 (with the ActiveX object) supports it as well. Opera 9 doesn't, and
it seems to me that you're in a better situation to convince them.
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:08:58 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I just tested with IE7 and Firefox2, which support it. I know that
IE6 (with the ActiveX object) supports it as well. Opera 9 doesn't,
and it seems to me that you're in a better
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:48:38 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Section 4.2 already talks about this quite explicitly. What do you want
it to say?
First of all, it's only the last paragraph of 4.2 which talks about
this, so being a bit more specific would probably help.
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:48:38 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section 4.2 already talks about this quite explicitly. What do you
want it to say?
First of all, it's only the last paragraph of 4.2 which talks about
this, so being a bit more specific
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:27:53 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. AFAIK, Basic and Digest are not interoperable outside of ASCII,
and this specification provides no guidance on the encoding of the
credentials. Is there anything useful we can say here?
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:34:01 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So what do we do with the other headers which are documented to be
non-repeatable, but do not appear in that list?
Dunno, it would've been nice if
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:34:01 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what do we do with the other headers which are documented to be
non-repeatable, but do not appear in that list?
Dunno, it would've been nice if
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:46:49 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, I'm asking because this spec is supposed to document existing
practice, right? Do we have reliable data about what the applications
really do here?
It does not document existing practice entirely. If it
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:13:52 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Otherwise, if the nominated request header field already has a value,
the new value MUST be combined with the existing value (section 4.2,
[RFC2616]).
That's a bit misleading. What
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:46:49 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm asking because this spec is supposed to document existing
practice, right? Do we have reliable data about what the applications
really do here?
It does not document existing
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:12:54 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
then from my perspective the user agent combined the values properly,
but the draft seems to attempt to make the request above illegal.
Clarified.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:17:04 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The issue here is that even if we would have complete data on registered
headers, this doesn't help at all with non-registered headers and future
ones.
Non-registered headers and future ones would be treated the
This is fantastic, we took a look at the working draft and it looks great.
The IE team's looking forward to seeing it published!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Tue 2/13/2007 1:41 AM
To: Web API WG (public)
Cc: Web API WG
Subject:
Sunava Dutta schrieb:
This is fantastic, we took a look at the working draft and it looks great.
The IE team's looking forward to seeing it published!
Good to hear.
Are you actually planning to implement it? Such as support for WebDAV
method names? (remember that's a SHOULD-level
15 matches
Mail list logo
