Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> Basically I'd be ok with splitting the requirement regarding "same input"
> into two, one for how to handle the same URL with the same bytes (as a
> MUST), and one for how to handle less strictly identical input (as a
> SHOULD, since it would likely require storage). Would that work?

I'd be happy with that.  It seems to more clearly capture the existing
MUST that I wanted, and additionally layer an extra SHOULD on top
where my suggestion is silent, which addresses more cases better.


Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 20:41:22 UTC