W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Netscape vs. Digest

From: Marc Salomon <marc@ckm.ucsf.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:04:16 -0700
Message-Id: <9608291404.ZM21635@gaia.ckm.ucsf.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1518
Daniel DuBois:
|I have only said that indications I've received imply Netscape needs to be
|coaxed to support Digest, because they, as of recently, had no plans to
|support it.

Plans not to support it, rather.  And the statement was made by the NS
standards cop, not marketing exec (although I'm not sure the difference 'tween
the two is measurable).

If there's anything more unpleasant than advertising suspect claims of
standards conformance to sell products (We Support HTML 3.0!), its holding your
breath until blue in the face so that those standards to conform to planned
null implementations.

The technical case for (digest && basic) == MUST is overwhelming.  Requiring
this gaping BASIC security hole be plugged with (at least) digest does not
privilege any one product over another.  The political advance if digest is
'musted' is on behalf of the users and ensuring that our privacy can be
enhanced across interoperable implementations.


Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 14:06:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC