- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 16:56:39 +0000
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- In message <627257EE-FE78-40A6-AA91-9E488C53A8FC@gbiv.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" w rites: >This is not how the IETF is supposed to work on standards track proposals. I think that era died with Jon Postel and the rubberstamping of H2 ? I will 100% agree with you that the SH draft is a lot less ambitious than pretty much anything which have been discussed along the way. JSON died on the the general distaste for UniCode in HTTP headers, and the fact that once it had been shoe-horned into HTTP/1 headers it would no longer be JSON anyway. Then I tried to synthesize a hierachial format, almost as powerful as JSON but without those two problems, and that died because the result did not look like HTTP headers used to look, and some people were uneasy about the deep/recursive abilities once they started thinking more about it. Then we retreated further by restricting the depth to one, hoping to at least curb the enthusiasm for inventing new syntax in this space, and through successive cuttings of heels and toes, the SH draft we have now has resulted. If you have any ideas how this could have gone better, I'm all ears ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 16:57:04 UTC