- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:59:21 +0100 (MET)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com (Larry Masinter)
- Cc: kweide@tezcat.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-international@w3.org
Larry Masinter:
[...]
>Perhaps one of the requirements for 'feature registration' should be a
>that the registration form contain N different URLs where the content
>actually differs depending on whether the feature is or is not
>present.
>
>At least then others would have some test cases.
We certainly thought about such a requirement when we were writing the
document, but we could not figure out how to put it in.
The problem is that, if these N different URLs already exist, this would be
proof that negotiation on the feature can already be done without
registering a new feature tag.
In general, it is hard to add an `actual usefullness' requirement without
having a review board in the loop, and we don't want to have a review board.
We do have the following field in the registration form:
Applications or sites which will use this feature tag: [optional]
| For applications, also specify the number of the first version
| which will use the tag.
the idea is that, if the author leaves this blank, this would be a good
warning sign that you should not take the tag too seriously.
>Larry
Koen.
Received on Sunday, 8 December 1996 06:59:18 UTC