- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:44:43 +0000
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Konstantinov Sergey <twirl@yandex-team.ru>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > This feels fanciful, at best. I don't think so. The setup described in the specification allows for exactly that. > There are existing underlying transports. They are (or can be) specified > elsewhere. They are also interchangeable under this API. We must not prevent > this API from accommodating current reality (thereby robbing it of purpose), > nor can we expect everyone to sign up to a new transport for no reason other > than that we asked them to. > > Lets get concrete: is it acceptable to the folks clamoring for a specified > transport if one is specified elsewhere? That was acknowledged long ago. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 14:45:14 UTC