Re: content negotiation flap (resend)

Larry Masinter:
>While it's generally my impression that:
>a) we're awaiting a new draft from Jim Gettys, and Roy's proposed edits
>   were ill-timed since it was my impression that Jim had already
>   worked over those sections, and

I'm confused.  From reading Roy's message, my impression was that the
enclosed diffs would be applied by Jim for the next draft.  What
exactly is the status of these diffs?

> Koen has defended some points as "the consensus
>of the content negotiation subgroup", but I don't remember seeing
>active acknowledgement (as opposed to a passive lack of response).

Two comments:

First, whenever I used `does not reflect consensus of the content
negotiation subgroup', this was only used as a secondary line of
defense for the proposed edits to Roy's text.  The core defense for
these edits always was that Roy's text implied decisions about the
transparent content negotiation mechanism we, as the http-wg, decided
to postpone.

Second, `reflects the consensus of the content negotiation subgroup'
is not a predicate I apply lightly.  I consider something to have
subgroup consensus if

 a) it was recorded in a content negotiation subgroup mailing list
    message claiming to summarize consensus reached by the subgroup,
    and if it was not challenged afterwards

 b) it was recorded in the latest version of the new content
    negotiation sections I posted on the content negotiation mailing
    list without ever being challenged

So this is `consensus by lack of comments to a statement that claims
to reflect consensus'.



Received on Monday, 27 May 1996 05:15:30 UTC