Re: draft-iab-extension-recs & W3C TAG

My hope is that the document is general enough that any protocol
designer could choose to take notice of it, but all the examples
are based on IETF experience, so it would presumptuous to assert that
it applies globally.

There's a implicit assumption in the IETF that interoperability is
Good and walled gardens are Bad, and that lies behind a lot of the
thinking in this document. There are aspects of the languages debate
that seem to challenge this assumption, or at least change it in a subtle
way. As John Klensin could explain at length, getting any kind of consensus
on language-related issues in the IETF has proved very hard, and I think
the underlying reason is the interop vs walled garden tension.

For that matter, I could make an argument that using XML is Bad,
because its infinite extensibility and its dependence on an external
DTD make backwards-compatible interoperability impossible to guarantee.

My emotional reaction right now is "can't we just get this RFC done?"
because it's been dragging on for years. Maybe we can clarify the scope
of the document, and leave scope for a supplementary one on formats
and languages?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter


On 2011-11-01 19:02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I'm not sure.  What do you think?
> 
> The last few revisions have tried to incorporate more application-layer examples and issues, so I'd certainly welcome W3C TAG feedback. 
> 
> 
>> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:27:59 -0700
>> From: stpeter@stpeter.im
>> To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; bernard_aboba@hotmail.com; cheshire@apple.com
>> CC: nrm@arcanedomain.com; masinter@adobe.com; www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: draft-iab-extension-recs & W3C TAG
>>
>> Dear IAB authors:
>>
>> Do you think that draft-iab-extension-recs has applicability to W3C work
>> on formats and languages?
>>
>> Folks at the W3C TAG are curious. :)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 17:53:01 UTC