W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > January 2015

Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:11:50 +0900
Message-ID: <54ABB4E6.5030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <roy.fielding@gmail.com>
CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
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