- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:11:50 +0900
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <roy.fielding@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 2014/12/25 06:03, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 12/24/2014 03:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> You have only looked at a handful of implementations, almost all of >> which are browsers. For 3986, we had over 50 independent >> implementations participate in the process, with well over a thousand >> known implementations in the wild. We spent four years on that >> process, in addition to the years spent on RFC1808 and RFC2396. Roy, would it be possible to send the list of these implementations (or a subset, or a pointer to it) to this list or to apps-discuss@ietf.org? > I welcome the addition of more implementations to test. To date, I've > chosen not to focus on implementations that are neither actively being > developed nor particularly compliant, even if those implementations are > widely used. The story will only get worse if such are included (an > example would be java.net.URI). I'm not exactly sure whether/how well "running code" and the above selection criteria go together. But I haven't gotten to the point where I feel confident about explaining what seems wrong, yet. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 10:12:51 UTC