- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:46:52 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Tim Bray scripsit: > No kidding. It varies more or less as the number of permutations of > useragent * platform, with substantial version variation thrown in. I > can see the thinking behind this, but an RFC that says, essentially, > "Internet Explorer on post-4.0 versions on Windows platforms does X, > while Gecko-based engines on linux platforms do Y, on Windows platforms > do Z, while the popular LWP perl library does W, java.net.URI does U... > anyhow, such an RFC would feel profoundly weird to me. -Tim Not all RFCs prescribe standards, and this is information that would be profoundly useful to the Internet community. Maybe it should be a separate informational RFC, or maybe just an informative section in the standards-track RFC; that's an editorial question. But it would be excellent to have a single reasonably authoritative place to go, rather to have to run one's own experiments all the time. This is probably not a part of the system that's really worth standardizing anyway, since file: is inherently not interoperable. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@reutershealth.com [T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin. Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may have important survival value. --Ian Johnston
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 03:46:54 UTC