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

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

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 23:36:39 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6ieamyEruQmBB5ecFWw1jonc7PY4gr32bjWMm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Woah, sorry Larry.  I didn't mean to misrepresent your views.  I'd be
happy to go over your technical feedback again, but I suspect this
isn't the proper forum for that discussion.


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> 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:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.htm
> l
> 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
> resistance".
> Finding the "path of least resistance" for a technical specification
> that affects the stability, security and reliability of the web
> is irresponsible.
> Don't.
> Thanks so much,
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> -----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>
> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>> 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.,
> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2010/01/over-specification-is-anti-compet
> itive.html).
>  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:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572589
>>>  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.
> Ok.  I'll chat with various folks and try to figure out the path of
> least resistance here.
> Thanks,
> Adam
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 06:37:34 UTC

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