Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>> No. I don't need to sell you the idea. The idea doesn't stand or
>> fall on the opinion of this mailing list.
>
> Did you really say this ? Did I read this correctly ?
>
> No, can't be. I don't think Mozilla wants to insult all the IETF
> experts that have voluntarily
> Are you sure that they do not do the same? I tried to promote
> Konqueror but it has apparently the same (or even worse) bug than
> Firefox. And my bug report for Konqueror was closed immediately, which
> seems to indicate that the Mozilla people are not the only one with
> deaf ears.
Yes, but
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0200,
Antoin Verschuren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
> Perhaps it's time to move back to promoting Opera again.
Are you sure that they do not do the same? I tried to promote
Konqueror but it has apparently the same (or even wor
> No. I don't need to sell you the idea. The idea doesn't stand or fall on
> the opinion of this mailing list.
Did you really say this ?
Did I read this correctly ?
No, can't be. I don't think Mozilla wants to insult all the IETF experts that
have voluntarily helped them make a living in the fi
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Incidentally - have you answered by question yet - or put it on the web
> > site? What happens to your web browsers behavior if I try to surf a TLD
> > not on the list?
>
> I've answered it once to you privately and
Joe Baptista wrote:
> Listening would you mind explaining something here. Do we work for
> you? I'm pretty sure your being paid to promote your public suffix idea
> but we are not. There are many here who are too busy to spend time
> reading your stuff, let alone go back to the web site for upda
Joe Baptista wrote:
> Listening would you mind explaining something here. Do we work for
> you? I'm pretty sure your being paid to promote your public suffix idea
> but we are not. There are many here who are too busy to spend time
> reading your stuff, let alone go back to the web site for upda
On Jun 11, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
> Listening would you mind explaining something here. Do we work for
> you? I'm pretty sure your being paid to promote your public suffix
> idea but we are not. There are many here who are too busy to spend
> time reading your stuff, let al
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must confess it is somewhat frustrating when, having put up a website
> explaining what this is all about, and having had a long discussion on
> this list, people continually misunderstand the point while having shown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> that URL does not resolve in the way you might
> expect.
Sorry :-) Cut and pasted from my browser without checking. That's my
local testing copy, of course.
http://www.publicsuffix.org/learn/
Gerv
___
DNSOP mailin
>
> http://publicsuffix/learn/ has more info (and I've just checked in
> another update, which should be visible in the next day or so. There's a
> human in the update loop).
>
> Gerv
> ___
that URL does not resolve in the way you might
Edward Lewis wrote:
> Is the issue that a cookie needs to state for what domains it is
> valid?
No.
> Are you trying to relate domain names to a registrant?
No.
I must confess it is somewhat frustrating when, having put up a website
explaining what this is all about, and having had a long d
At 23:10 +1000 6/11/08, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>While this thread isn't necessarily off-topic for ietf-http-wg list,
>it's more relevant IMO to dnsop, and cross-posted high-volume
>discussions tend to be distracting.
>
>So, please try to move discussion onto the dnsop list (I've set Reply-
>To acco
While this thread isn't necessarily off-topic for ietf-http-wg list,
it's more relevant IMO to dnsop, and cross-posted high-volume
discussions tend to be distracting.
So, please try to move discussion onto the dnsop list (I've set Reply-
To accordingly).
Thanks,
--
Mark Nottingham http
14 matches
Mail list logo
