Re: [hybi] Ticket#1 Http Compliance

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:33:20 +0200, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Is it a requirement to have a requirements document?
> 
> I don't know, but in my experience going back to requirements when there
> already is a draft specification is counter-productive. We'll get the
> same debates, only now with more meta. I, for one, am not looking
> forward to it.

Anne,

Personally, I'm not advocating that the WHATWG delay the their
work on the protocol or it's deployment while waiting for the IETF
processes.   There is no requirement that a deployed protocol
is an IETF standard.

I would prefer to see a clear distinction between the spec
as it is being currently deployed and the spec as it is
currently being standardized.

Given the time frames of the IETF processes, my expectation is
that a consensus standard should aim to be the 1.1 version of
the protocol (or maybe an entirely different 2.0 protocol?).

But conversely, just because the browser vendors are further along
their process, it does not mean that the IETF should make an
exception to it's processes when formulating a standard.


regards