Re: [dbound] DBOUND interest @ IETF 114?

[Jothan Frakes <[e-mail]>]

>
> the PSL maintainers did not seek consensus before starting out, they saw
> and solved a problem. the features they thought would be useful outside
> of the browser community never took off. i think there are lessons there.
>
>
Browsers did it for their purpose - others glommed on their own uses.
Browsers et al don't all agree on how or what it should look like, and are
on the precipice of splintering away from PSL, so we're careful as
maintainers about fracturing the consumer/integrator election to use it as
a resource, minimal change to format, file-size modesty and
record/requestor validations.

I got involved in PSL later, after it had formed as a planet, and it has
been volunteer-based along the whole journey, but invest time/cycles
because I see it as being fundamental to 'Universal Acceptance' efforts.
It is what I refer to as the least awful, most complete free resource of
its kind that receives ongoing maintenance, and that has accumulated a
gravitational pull and has drawn a lot of things into its orbit.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dependency.png also.    ;)