W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2014

Re: TPE Editorial Proposal to Remove Another Hard Dependency on the Compliance Specification

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:35:38 -0400
Message-ID: <531DDBCA.1050002@appnexus.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>

On 2014-03-08 12:44 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
>> Matthias,
>> What I don't understand about this is why, if Roy can unilaterally 
>> add the T without group discussion or consensus, Jack's proposal is 
>> being rejected by the chairs out of hand?
> I changed the duo TSV of "1" or "3" to a "T" as part of the directive to
> remove indicators of compliance from the protocol.
Remove, not add.

And since we're on the topic, why and when was the "disregard" signal 

> That has had plenty
> of discussion, both prior to the change and after I described the change.
> It even provoked a related CfO.
> This is hardly an opportunity to criticize the chairs -- Matthias was
> just asking questions in order to elicit some clue as to why the suggested
> change might be needed.
I'm not criticizing the chairs. I'm asking why Jack's proposal is not 
being added to the TPE.
> I am the one who rejected the addition of "R" (or at least the suggestion
> that it is an editorial change).  The change to "T" wasn't an editorial
> change either -- it was a proposal by an editor to the WG after discussion
> amongst the editorial group (including chairs).  That's why it was
> described in the message that Jack quoted.
> In any case, this whole discussion seems to be based on a failure to
> understand what the "T" TSV means and how it would be used by servers.
I think I understand what it means, but maybe not. Please educate me.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 15:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:08 UTC