Ignore:
Timestamp:
14/09/10 13:25:45 (11 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

mark 'Implementations' sub section as 'to be removed before publication'

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml

    r1004 r1005  
    688688</section>
    689689
    690 <section title="Implementations" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
     690<section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
    691691<t>
    692692  Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
     
    698698<t>
    699699  The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:
    700   <cref anchor="impls">Discuss: should we mention the implementation status
    701   of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...</cref> 
    702700</t>
    703701<texttable align="left">
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.