Re: Dissemination of HTTP-NG info [was: hmmm]

Dan Connolly <> writes:

>The HTTP-NG activity is led by Henrik Frystyk Nielsen and
>Jim Gettys, who have put a lot of effort into HTTP 1.1, as
>I'm sure you know.

No one can question Henrik's or Jim's commitment to the web community
or to the principles of open standards process.

>Unlike the IETF, where anybody with an email account can
>participate in any working group, W3C reserves the option,
>when we set up and activity, to require that the participants
>commit to a certain level of participation.

Ay, there's the rub.  Some of us believe very strongly in public debate
and discussion, and see the W3C's process as a return to closed-door
committees that you have to buy your way onto.  Some such committees
have produced excellent results.  Others have not, and we'd rather that
HTTP-NG have the benefit of advice from all reasonable voices.

>I hope you agree that this is a reasonable way to run
>the project. I'm interested if you have any reaction.

It's A way to run a project.  It's even a REASONABLE way to run an
experimental project.  But it's a BAD way to run a project that claims
to represent the replacement for an openly developed and debated
protocol.  Nothing in the HTTP-NG section of the W3C website suggests
that the HTTP-NG work is just a precursor to open standardization.  Given
that the only other major W3C projects (HTML and PICS) didn't work that
way, it's only natural for those of us on the outside to assume that
when the working group is done, the protocol is done.  I'm glad to hear
that isn't true.

I look forward to reading the working group's drafts and participating
in the discussion that they will provoke.  I hope the working group will
understand that their work will be treated by the rest of us in the same
way as any other submission from a closed organization, and that there
will be some degree of change and compromise required.

Ross Patterson
Sterling Software, Inc.
VM Software Division

Received on Thursday, 12 March 1998 14:50:38 UTC