- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:02:09 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > +1 > > Roughly, it would be ideal if there were *no* penalty; however, if it's > necessary for there to be some penalty, it shouldn't be disproportionate. > > Or, "non-GET SHOULD NOT be penalised more than GET, but if it is it MUST > NOT be unduly penalised." I don't really agree with the first part of this sentence. It doesn't matter if one thing gets penalized more than anything else, what matters is that we penalize everything as little as possible. The first part of the sentence seems to encourage penalizing GET more just to be "fair", which I would be strongly opposed. > Your final formulation is fine as well. Of course, "unduly" is a > judgement call that needs to be balanced with the other requirements. Cool, so does that mean you are fine with adding a requirement phrased like the one in my initial reply? "The solution must not unduly penalize cross-site requests with performance degradation. Likewise, it must not unduly penalize use of a particular style of URI, or the use of a large number of URIs." / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 00:04:09 UTC