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

Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:32:11 -0400
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1335202331.2164.49429.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:05 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> 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.

Okay, so it sounds like we agree that we are talking about a protocol
for *cooperating* parties.

But even with cooperating parties, the protocol also does not need to
result in successful communication in every case.  It only needs to
facilitate successful communication if both parties *choose* to go to
the effort required to communicate successfully.  

I don't think it is fair to consider behavior to be "hostile" just
because the parties have not chosen to be clear or precise.  Different
applications have different needs, and some do not need much clarity or
precision -- even to the point of conflating a toucan with a page about
the toucan -- and that's okay.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 17:32:50 UTC

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