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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:00:14 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CFE833D6-CD88-4D73-9AC8-C58355D8448A@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

On 21/09/2010, at 3:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> 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 wasn't asking you to specify their behaviour, merely to speculate on how they might conform -- as it seems like your understanding of the requirement is different from others -- so that the discussion can move forward. 

When I wrote that message, I hadn't seen yours from earlier today (my time), possibly because I've been CC:ed on some of these messages, not others. Apologies; it looks like you have answered that question.

>>> 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 didn't declare consensus; I'm only trying to get a reading of the Working Group -- including implementers -- so we can get there. 


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 06:00:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC