Re: [hybi] Ticket#1 Http Compliance

["Anne van Kesteren" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:28:15 +0200, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I think it would be good if proposals for new requirements indicated
>> that to satisfy them changes to the draft would be required. This
>> especially has been a long-standing debate and having it as a debate on
>> requirements does not seem like a good idea to me.
>
> I believe that the intent of the chairs to focus the discussion on
> requirements is exactly to help resolve such long standing
> debates as HTTP compliance.
>
> If some believe that HTTP compliance is a requirement, while others
> think that it is not, then we will never reach agreement on a mechanism
> that breaks HTTP compliance.    We first need to resolve if it
> is a requirement or not.
>
> It may be that consensus is that we don't need to be HTTP compliant and
> then the next time I argue "but you can't do that because it is
> not HTTP compliant", I can be politely told that it is not a
> requirement and thus we can get on with the rest of the protocol.

I guess I don't agree with the requirement then.

I don't believe that shifting the debate to discussing requirements  
instead is a good idea. To me it makes everything less concrete and far  
more vague as to what the intentions are of people proposing the  
requirements. We don't necessarily need to have a (lack of a) requirement  
to do what you say. We could just make a WG decision.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/