W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:05:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMJXVw5oBQVn4wC6-ke3XS3BU1j2n0MsQTcQn61Bgdd1vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> But that is not the right criterion.   Hostile receivers are
> irrelevant, as anything can be misinterpreted if that is one's intent.
> The architecture only needs to facilitate communication among
> *cooperating* parties

I *was* talking about this case. For example, if a proposed agreement
says "there is no agreement" then the behavior of parties cooperating
under that proposal is unconstrained and any use of unconstrained
behavior is potentially hostile, even if it is cooperating with the
proposed agreement. Under "does not imply" there is (as stated) no
agreement unless there is a description link. Then two parties both
cooperating with the proposal could easily fail to successfully
communicate with one another, e.g. if one assumed httpRange-14 and the
other assumed "read the content" or "primary topic". To get
coordination there must be *some* agreement, and for the sake of
transparency it's best if the agreement is written down.

Jonathan
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 15:06:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC