Re: ACTION-161: Rewording for requirement 3

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-01-31 17:43:12 -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> Must be deployable to IIS and Apache without requiring actions by the server 
>>> administrator in a configuration where the user can upload static files, run 
>>> serverside scripts (such as PHP, ASP, and CGI), control http headers, and 
>>> control authorization, but only do this for URIs under a given set of 
>>> subdirectories on the server.
>> I would like this to not mention specific products of any particular
>> vendor.
> 
> We can change "to IIS and Apache" to "with Web server software used by 20% 
> or more of the Web", but I think that would actually just make the 
> requirement less clear (though no more ambiguous).
> 
> Incidentally, I really would encourage people to not wordsmith these 
> requirements. Unless one actually disagrees with the requirement, I think 
> arguing about them is a waste of time, especially for Anne, who could 
> instead spend time doing real work on the normative parts of the spec. It 
> really makes no difference whether the text says "IIS" or not, at the end 
> of the day.

Agreed! Some of these requirements were initially unclear what they 
meant and it was good that we fixed that. But beyond that I don't think 
the exact wording matters at all.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 17:40:33 UTC