W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > May 2010

Re: Status of draft-abarth-mime-sniff?

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 21:27:40 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTing3qQTm_mb2iHD8MJlk-bGBzJrpZ58jJKae6UO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 17/05/2010, at 2:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> What's the status of this draft? It doesn't nominate an Intended Status,
>>>> nor is it being tracked by an Area Director, so its future in the IETF
>>>> isn't defined. Do you still consider its venue the IETF?
>>>
>>> So long as it is implemented interoperably, I don't really mind where it
>>> is published, personally. I defer to Adam, who has done most of the work
>>> on this draft so far (I just did the first bit, basically).
>>
>> Philosophically, I think the IETF is the "right" venue for the
>> document, but I understand that it's politically unpopular.
>
> Do you mean by the IETF, browser vendors, W3C, someone else?

In the past, it has seemed like Larry Masinter wasn't a big fan of the
document.  My understanding is that Larry is generally again "over
specifying" (e.g.,
http://masinter.blogspot.com/2010/01/over-specification-is-anti-competitive.html).
 I certainly don't want to speak for Larry, but I think he views this
document in that light.

As for browser vendors, they seem generally supportive, if cautious of
change.  The smaller vendors seem to be the most positive.  For
example, libsoup implemented content sniffing based on the spec:

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572589

>>  Browser vendors are converging on the algorithm in the draft, which is great.
>> I think it makes sense to publish it in a permanent form so that folks
>> years from now will know how this stuff works.  If you have advice for
>> how to make it more palatable to the IETF, I'd welcome your input.
>
> I think the best thing you could do would be to try to progress the draft and see what happens. Otherwise we're just speculating.

Ok.  I'll chat with various folks and try to figure out the path of
least resistance here.

Thanks,
Adam
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 04:51:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 May 2010 04:51:28 GMT