W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Straw-man charter

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:44:29 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.toru8fvw64w2qv@id-c0020.driveway.uu.nl>

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:23:45 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
>>> Additionally, the working group may produce one or more test suites  
>>> for HTTP conformance, if there is sufficient interest.
>>  I actually think this and maybe two interoperable implementations in  
>> popular browsers of the whole specification should be a requirement.  
>> Probably also for the server side of things. Otherwise the real issues  
>> probably never get fixed and deferred with arguments like: "We'll just  
>> wait until they get their act together..."
>
> I think I strongly disagree. Requiring that things are indeed completely  
> implemented will either result in lots of stuff being taken out, or the  
> spec never be done.

If that's indeed the result something is clearly wrong with the current  
specification. What's the use of a specification which authors and  
implementors can't actually rely on?


> So what *are* the real issues, then? Have they been raised over here?

I raised one (which was quickly rejected even though multiple people  
indicated it could not be implemented...), but there are others. Such as  
redirection of a POST as a GET etc. I'm not aware of a full list though,  
but such a list would probably become apparent once you start doing actual  
testing.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 14:44:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT