- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > There's a place for making sure you have a path from the current > implementations to the new standard, but this isn't it. Specifying this > behaviour well isn't going to cost anything; some implementations won't > be conformant for a little while, but fixing them won't break any > existing applications. > > Besides which, each of those implementations does a different thing; how > do you accurately represent that? I wasn't saying the spec had to represent what happens _today_, that's obviously impossible since the implementations differ. My point was that one of the implementors told you "we might never be able to do this" and yet it was still being considered. Once an implementor says "can't happen", especially if they give quite simple and clear reasons, there's no point going in that direction any more. In this particular case, it means there's no point requiring "put" to be sent as "put" instead of "PUT" because an implementor has informed you that implementors use network libraries that are outside their controls and these libraries sometimes convert "put" to "PUT". -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 19:39:05 UTC