- From: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:05:40 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Sometimes, the best is the enemy of the good. I think this is one of cases. As all good engineers should, I have great emotional sympathy for Roy's approach of producing the best possible HTTP spec, but while a brand-new, easy-to-implement-from HTTP/1.1 spec would sure be wonderful, if it isn't very likely to get done, then it isn't in reality better than a careful revision of the current one. (Another aspect of good engineering is dealing with tradeoffs.) Indeed, the above analysis also applies to the proposed charter: wouldn't an informational RFC "HTTP Implementors Guide" be nearly as good as the proposed RFC2616bis? And far less work, hence available much sooner? (And hey, since it isn't us, who are these evil "short-term corporate interests"? Are they available to take other heat off us, too? :-)
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 22:06:53 UTC