- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:06:45 -0800
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13/02/2008, at 7:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > It isn't consensus until the people who have to change their > implementations agree to do so. The change was applied in a way > that I did not anticipate, which made it a new requirement on > previously conforming implementations rather than a relaxation > of the existing requirements. The issue did not require that much. Julian applied the recorded intent faithfully (there was little room for interpretation; see <http://www.w3.org/mid/A0C47BE3-739B-491B-A502-80BA0AD6285A@mnot.net >), and no-one -- including yourself, unless I'm missing e-mail -- objected to it beforehand. Your point about consensus is well-taken; it is dependent on many things, and can of course change over time. However, we should avoid revisiting topics when possible. >> In the future, when you don't agree with emerging consensus, I'd >> appreciate it if you tell us as soon as is practical. > > This is as soon as practical. The last discussion of it took place > the day before I got hit by the bronchitis fever, and I did disagree > with the proposal at that time. Sorry to hear that, and I'm glad you're feeling better. I was responding specifically to this statement: > I was waiting for specific text to be suggested, but we can just fix > it in the draft. which was difficult to interpret, given that specific changes had been on the table for some time. Thanks for providing a proposal. I'd suggest that people review it carefully, because it's a much more substantial change, from a lines- of-text standpoint. Regards, P.S. Would people find it useful if we listed the current design issues under discussion somewhere (e.g., on the wiki, and/or in a weekly summary e-mail)? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 08:07:02 UTC