Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

I'm not convinced another interop is worth considering until this scheme
has been shown to be a *significant* improvement for *all* use cases
over the status quo. Mark has said the only four reasons we would accept
any changes at this point are:

> a) editorial improvements
> b) substantial interop problems
> c) serious security issues
> d) changes that have broad consensus (i.e., we all agree it's worth it)

and furthermore went on to say that the only category this option falls
under is (d), and that "if making these changes is controversial, we
haven't met the bar".

So far, I haven't seen this be a totally non-controversial change
(though I understand it's not my call to make). That said, there is (to
my mind) a way the proponents of this change can remove any controversy
- by proving that this option is a wholesale improvement. We don't need
another interop draft for that, just someone to run a decent number of
test cases (that fall under both the "better with static table first"
and "better with dynamic table first" buckets) and show us the numbers.
Tatsuhiro has provided an implementation for anyone who doesn't want to
update their own (or write their own), so let's wait to see what the
numbers tell us before making what is currently at best a speculative
change to the spec.
-- 
Peace,
  -Nick

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 17:39:45 UTC