On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If only we had heard their sides and ideas, it would've been a lot easier > to expand upon, and if we collectively can't come up with something it might > be a good idea to take it to the spec list otherwise? There's a lot of smart > people there too from various parties that can provide some useful input > too. > > Sorry but i would've really preferred if we had at least some idea that > some people were at least aware that there was a problem, and what it was, > so that people could contribute to it where possible, and otherwise at least > know what's up you know :) I dunno, I usually don't post threads saying I can't figure out how to do something unless someone was expecting that I was doing it. Were you actually waiting on Cassie on this? If so, yeah -- she probably should have given you a heads up that there were some issues. I don't see why you'd wait on her though if you've got something that works. So what exactly is the problem? The multi part construction from javascript > or the server side interpretation of it? Frankly, I don't even know, but I haven't really looked at the REST code thoroughly enough to have an opinion on whether there's a problem at all. > > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:04 AM, Kevin Brown wrote: > > >> I don't know; David and Cassie had different opinions on the matter, so >> they >> talked to try to sort it out. I don't think they came to any conclusion on >> the matter, so hopefully someone with better ideas will :). >> > >
