- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:16:39 +1000
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 17/05/2010, at 2:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> What's the status of this draft? It doesn't nominate an Intended Status, >>> nor is it being tracked by an Area Director, so its future in the IETF >>> isn't defined. Do you still consider its venue the IETF? >> >> So long as it is implemented interoperably, I don't really mind where it >> is published, personally. I defer to Adam, who has done most of the work >> on this draft so far (I just did the first bit, basically). > > Philosophically, I think the IETF is the "right" venue for the > document, but I understand that it's politically unpopular. Do you mean by the IETF, browser vendors, W3C, someone else? > Browser vendors are converging on the algorithm in the draft, which is great. > I think it makes sense to publish it in a permanent form so that folks > years from now will know how this stuff works. If you have advice for > how to make it more palatable to the IETF, I'd welcome your input. I think the best thing you could do would be to try to progress the draft and see what happens. Otherwise we're just speculating. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 04:17:36 UTC