- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:58:30 -0800
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
I'm willing to help with the "move to IETF" tasks and shepherding the documents through. (I'm not volunteering to edit the drafts but rather to assist those who have the action items.) Personally, I prefer to use the RFC 2629 XML format for producing documents (see http://xml.resource.org/). Delegating things to the IETF means removing them from the HTML specification, not leaving them in pending their acceptance (or "blessing") by the IETF. If the "Origin" header requires additional guidance on when it should or shouldn't be used, then that also belongs in the IETF review. The purpose of IETF review is to insure that the community affected by protocol changes - implementers of firewalls, malware detectors, network accelerators, web servers, etc. - have a chance to review the technical proposal and its impact without having to wade through things they could care less about. "Writing an internet draft" is merely a first step in getting IETF approval: necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary to follow through: to publish a document as an Internet Draft, ask for its progression, respond reasonably to technical objections in a timely manner, request progression to Proposed Standard or inclusion in another document moving to Proposed Standard, and prepare the document for publication. The IETF is an open standards organization, and acceptance or approval is not guaranteed. It isn't acceptable for HTML to plan to retain changes HTTP (or other IETF-specified protocols, formats and protocol elements) that are not approved through the IETF process, as a way of making end-run around that process. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 17:59:35 UTC