Re: protocols and W3C

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 13:13 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2010, at 15:09, Dave Raggett wrote:
> 
> > The IETF is well known and highly regarded for its work on transport
> > layer protocols, including HTTP, and provides an effective venue for
> > work on HTTP, and related work such as streaming HTTP and Web sockets.
> 
> An observation that I got about this text from somebody around the IETF
>  crowd is that HTTP is a "transfer", not a "transport" protocol.

What is the difference between transporting and transferring something?
However, I don't think we need to be too precise here, and suggest that
that would actually be counterproductive.  If you think about a stack of
protocols, then W3C is more likely to be interested in ones that sit on
top of lower level ones that are defined by the IETF. 

> 
> > W3C is an appropriate venue for protocols at a higher level and with a
> > strong focus on Web data formats and conformance requirements for Web
> > user agents. This builds upon the skill sets of participants in W3C
> > Working Groups.
> > 
> > Strong standards benefit from extensive review and implementation
> > experience. This is why it is valuable for W3C Working Groups to review
> > and coordinate with related work at the IETF, and vice versa. In some
> > cases there will be multiple proposals, and these will have to play out
> > in the market place, but solid peer review from a broad range of
> > perspectives will benefit the market whichever solution wins out.
> 
> 

-- 
 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett

Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 12:17:15 UTC