Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 ([e-mail] from September 2012)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 23/10/2012, at 10:31 AM, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 23/10/2012, at 10:16 AM, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I can't speak for Anne, but having experienced the IETF via the hybi 
>>> work, my own opinion is that the main reason I wouldn't work with the 
>>> IETF is that the community these days values consensus over technical 
>>> value and running code, and the culture in the IETF doesn't value the 
>>> kind of specification style that IMHO leads to better interop. For 
>>> example, this very thraed -- we're having to argue to convince people 
>>> that defining error handling is even a valuable thing to do.
>> 
>> Wait - who's making that argument?
> 
> Me.

So, you're saying that you can't work in this environment (*fans self*) because of the arguments you're making?

OK.


>> References, please.
> 
> This very thread is evidence enough, but see also the complete disinterest 
> in fixing the URL specs

Also? I thought that was what we were talking about...

> or the reaction abarth got from MIME sniffing

AIUI Adam walked away from it because two people expressed individual concerns about it. Had he stuck with it, I'm personally convinced it would have gotten through pretty easily.

> or 
> the disaster that was hybi

I personally think websockets was a bad idea from the start, so I'll refrain from further comment.

> or this complete disinterest in fixing the 
> problem with encodings:
> 
>   http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#01830
>   http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#02027
>   http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#02034

No comment, would have to look into it.

> ...or the way IANA registrations for MIME types get handled

... the process for which was recently revised, based partially on those experiences.

> or HTTP bis' reaction to browser feedback

As far as I know, we addressed all of that feedback to the satisfaction of those who brought it. If you believe otherwise, we're currently in WGLC.

> or the way process is put ahead of progress 
> (there's no way to fix an RFC once it's published, even errata are often 
> rejected), or the lack of any testing culture...
> 
> I understand that you disagree that most of those were a problem.

Oh, no, I agree that there are some pretty serious problems here. 

> But the 
> original question was "why don't you work at IETF", and that's the answer. 
> It may be that you conclude that it's a good thing, therefore, that I and 
> others don't work at the IETF, but in that case you shouldn't complain 
> when we go and do stuff outside the IETF.


Again, I'm not stuffed about the venue, and you can do what you like. However, when the *W3C* does things that interact with IETF technologies, we coordinate to make sure that there aren't overlaps, conflicts, etc. 

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/