- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:14:00 +1100
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Cc: httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 02/11/2010, at 2:09 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> The 'crazy encoding' you refer to isn't dreamed up by the Web server. Regardless, if you'd like to pursue this path, you need to make a proposal and do the legwork to show that implementers will support it, with a reasonable backwards-compatibility story. > > Has Julian done the legwork to show that implementers will support his > draft? All the bugs I've seen that he's filed with Chrome seem to end > up with Jungshik Shin refusing to implement his proposal. Yes; he's written a draft, done an interoperability matrix and associated testing, justified his design decisions, and followed up with implementers. That's "the legwork." The bugs that I see Julian and Jungshik interacting over seem to be characterised by Julian answering his questions; I don't see outright refusal at all. >>> Also, we should remove the language tagging facility >>> because it is gratuitous. >> >> Can you say a bit more here? We can open an issue for this, but your reasoning (beyond "it's gratuitous") isn't clear. > > Put another way: what's the use case for including a language tag? If for no other reason, it's included now because it's in 5987, where it's included (AIUI) because some headers may have need for it. Are you suggesting that receivers MAY ignore it, or that senders MUST NOT send it? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 07:14:34 UTC