W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > May 2010

RE: Status of draft-abarth-mime-sniff?

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 23:20:44 -0700
To: "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-ietf-w3c" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, "'Dan Wing'" <dwing@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <001401caf589$172e37b0$458aa710$@org>
Rather than resorting to an ad hominem argument about whether I 
am or am not a "fan" of something, could you please actually address
the technical issues I raised on the document itself? Trolling
my blog for some argument that you imagine I might have made
and then arguing against them is an interesting tactic.

My blog post -- a pretty general and theoretical one,
have nothing to do with the specific comments on this document,
and your speculation is misdirection at best.

I don't think the problem with this document is "over-specifying",
I think the problem is that it doesn't "reflect reality"
and that it is also detrimental to the stability, security, and
reliability of the web.

I think you addressed a few of the issues I raised in:


but for the most part, not. 

Whether or not there is substantial community that would agree
with me can only be found if you were willing to actually get the 
document reviewed, rather than trying to find the "path of least 

Finding the "path of least resistance" for a technical specification
that affects the stability, security and reliability of the web
is irresponsible.  


Thanks so much,



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Adam Barth
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:28 PM
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: Ian Hickson; public-ietf-w3c
Subject: Re: Status of draft-abarth-mime-sniff?

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> 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
>>>> nor is it being tracked by an Area Director, so its future in the
>>>> 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?

In the past, it has seemed like Larry Masinter wasn't a big fan of the
document.  My understanding is that Larry is generally again "over
specifying" (e.g.,
 I certainly don't want to speak for Larry, but I think he views this
document in that light.

As for browser vendors, they seem generally supportive, if cautious of
change.  The smaller vendors seem to be the most positive.  For
example, libsoup implemented content sniffing based on the spec:


>>  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
>> years from now will know how this stuff works.  If you have advice
>> 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.

Ok.  I'll chat with various folks and try to figure out the path of
least resistance here.

Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 06:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:09:56 UTC