- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:32:53 +1000
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
On 01/06/2007, at 8:05 AM, Paul Leach wrote: > Sometimes, the best is the enemy of the good. I think this is one of > cases. As all good engineers should, I have great emotional > sympathy for > Roy's approach of producing the best possible HTTP spec, but while a > brand-new, easy-to-implement-from HTTP/1.1 spec would sure be > wonderful, > if it isn't very likely to get done, then it isn't in reality better > than a careful revision of the current one. (Another aspect of good > engineering is dealing with tradeoffs.) > > Indeed, the above analysis also applies to the proposed charter: > wouldn't an informational RFC "HTTP Implementors Guide" be nearly as > good as the proposed RFC2616bis? And far less work, hence available > much > sooner? That's an interesting suggestion. My initial feeling is that it might be harder to settle on text if given a blank slate. Also, much of the work for bis is done, or in train -- see the issues list and draft-lafon. For the apps-discuss people who may not have seen them; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/ http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon- rfc2616bis-latest.txt > (And hey, since it isn't us, who are these evil "short-term corporate > interests"? Are they available to take other heat off us, too? :-) I'm sure someone could be found, for the right price... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 22:33:05 UTC