Re: Fragment Identifiers and Agent Perspectives

I'm finding the indented response form unwieldy, just wanted to
contribute a few points in reaction to various previous messages:

- The discussion of 3986 derives from my saying the following to Manu:
"Might need a revision to RFC 3986." I didn't say anything about who
would do it. And those who know me know that I often drop outrageous
suggestions just to get a reaction or make a point. It's clear that
revising 3986 is almost certainly infeasible, and I meant it as much
to push back on Manu's suggestion as anything else.

Happily, Roy and Martin have clarified that it will not be necessary
to update 3986. 3986 is so unclear, by design, that it would be hard
to write a document addressing these issues that contradicted it.
Therefore I suggest we drop the idea of revving 3986, except maybe as
a thought experiment. Instead the focus should be on amending it
externally, in the same way that AWWW did.

- Manu says he can't point developers at a document that answers the
questions that developers have. I absolutely agree. I think the TAG
could produce or supervise such a document, but it's been difficult to
find the manpower and determination needed to create it (it's
essentially the same as the httpRange-14 work I've been struggling
with). If anyone has any new ideas on how to advance this project let
me know.

- Just for the record I don't particularly like Manu's suggestion, and
I would want to look hard for alternatives; but I wanted to make sure
that the idea was written down and discussed here. My sense is that
it's hard to keep those affected by the TAG's issues in dialog with us
and I appreciate that Manu spoke up.

Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 14:59:22 UTC