Re: [hybi] Ticket#1 Http Compliance

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On May 13, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:41:53 +0200, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Attached is a proposed diff (from me as individual - not as
>>> requirements editor) to the requirements document for HTTP Compliance.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Anne,
> 
> 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.

One possible risk: we might fail to reach consensus on a requirement stated in the abstract, when actually it might be possible to reach agreement on a specific technical solution that happens to satisfy everyone's personal requirements. Sometimes it's much harder to evaluate the practical consequences of an abstract requirement than a specific technical solution.

Regards,
Maciej