On 2014/12/25 06:03, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 12/24/2014 03:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> You have only looked at a handful of implementations, almost all of >> which are browsers. For 3986, we had over 50 independent >> implementations participate in the process, with well over a thousand >> known implementations in the wild. We spent four years on that >> process, in addition to the years spent on RFC1808 and RFC2396. Roy, would it be possible to send the list of these implementations (or a subset, or a pointer to it) to this list or to apps-discuss@ietf.org? > I welcome the addition of more implementations to test. To date, I've > chosen not to focus on implementations that are neither actively being > developed nor particularly compliant, even if those implementations are > widely used. The story will only get worse if such are included (an > example would be java.net.URI). I'm not exactly sure whether/how well "running code" and the above selection criteria go together. But I haven't gotten to the point where I feel confident about explaining what seems wrong, yet. Regards, Martin.Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 10:12:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:10:18 UTC