- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:48:23 PST
- To: marc@ckm.ucsf.edu
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
The working group decided what it wanted to propose as a standard
("Proposed Standard"). In a number of cases, we proposed something
that wasn't current practice, but because we decided as a group that
what we were proposing was better than current practice. In the case
of cookies, we carefully weighed as best we could the issues of
privacy and flexibility, and came up with the best we could.
The next couple of steps of the standards process require us to review
the documents against what is actually implemented. We'll presume that
implementors will follow our recommendations because they were good
ones. At this point, to progress the cookie spec from Proposed to
Draft, we need to hear from implementors of the Proposed standard. If
no one implements it as is, then we won't move to Draft until we
change it to match what people implement. I don't think "opinions"
count much at this point, what we need is "experience".
# Let's keep this discussion limited to specific edits to the document that
# clarify the intent of the document on which the wg consensed. That intent
# might not reflect reality but such objections have been noted and logged.
If implementors are having a hard time figuring out what we meant,
then certainly we should clarify it. However, reports of actual
experience trying to stay within the guidelines is the most important
topic, and if "intent" doesn't reflect "reality", then we should
certainly discuss it. Be careful that you mean "reality" in the sense
of "what was actually implemented" rather than "get real, I have a
different opinion".
Larry
Received on Saturday, 8 February 1997 09:54:53 UTC