Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

2010/4/30 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>:
> I remain perplexed by the state of "the spec is feature complete and looking
> for implementations" -> potential implementors saying "the spec has X,Y,Z
> flaws" -> "sorry, the spec is feature complete. We're looking for
> implementations." At this rate, it's not clear to me what implementations
> it's going to get.
> (speaking as an individual here, and not a representative of Google Inc,
> Google Chrome Team, or necessarily even as a member of webapps WG.)
> -ian

Roughly there are already implementations.

A spec at this point is looking for implementers to say "this is not
implementable because of a bug or fatal error".

It is not looking for an implementer to say "we don't like X, why not
randomly tweak the bike shed color from red to hot pink".

If it turns out that using a red bike shed will cause people to crash
because they're all red-green color blind and can't see the red shed
in front of the flat green background, then perhaps painting the shed
hot pink is a necessary step to delivering the bike shed.

But given that there are already implementations which have shown that
a red bike shed works, then just asking to paint the bike shed hot
pink doesn't work at this point.

fwiw, I came two years ago and was already too late to change the
signature mechanism. You're coming two years after I came late and
asking to change the packaging mechanism. Your argument is that the
bike shed color should be hot pink because you like it (it would be
nice if you could use it on some beach somewhere in some condition
which was not part of the requirements capture). My argument against
the signature mechanism was based on canonicalization problems, and
they tried to address that (not my hand waving, just the problem) by
tweaking the spec, not by throwing out the entire model.

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 03:05:08 UTC