W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:50:50 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5E7FEFD1-0AE7-4595-A7F1-AE97C48E12EE@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> This is why I said we need to clarify the terminology around user interaction. They read "inform the user" as printing a message (possibly in a modal dialogue box, status bar, etc.). You appear to be reading it as "show a broken image box."
> 
> It would be more helpful if you explained how you envision this requirement being fulfilled. E.g., how will a browser that receives a CSS stylesheet with two content-length headers inform the user of the problem? Does simply not displaying the stylesheet qualify?

I can't do that Mark -- that would be making a UI decision
for the user agents that I am not capable of making from the
perspective of the HTTP interface.  Why should the HTTP spec
tell browsers how to handle a 404 response on a stylesheet?
It is the same problem.

>> I'd really like to encourage that we stop asking people's opinions
>> and instead ask them what they are going to implement (or already
>> have implemented).  Everyone has an opinion and I'd prefer that
>> thoughtful answers be provided instead of knee-jerk slogans.
> 
> 
> I've been told (albeit privately) what they are willing to implement, and have communicated that back. I again encourage other implementers (thanks, Anne) to engage in the discussion directly. 
> 
> <chair hat>
> 
> Roy, characterising other people's opinions *or* intent as "knee-jerk slogans" doesn't move the discussion forward, it makes implementers more reluctant to engage openly on-list. Please refrain.

Mark, if you are going to have private discussion with
a few browser developers and then bring them to this
list as if they were WG consensus, then you aren't being chair.

I did not dissuade *implementers* from engaging openly on this
list.  I dissuaded uninformed opinions from being the basis of
our decisions, rather than asking the real implementers of the
HTTP protocol stack within those very same groups what they
intend to implement so that we can have rough consensus and
running code.  That is the IETF way.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 05:51:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT