On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:48:32PM -0400, Oskar Batuner wrote:
> Mark, here we again have to set the right goal.
> On my mind such goal should be not the ultimate judgment
> if particular implementation is right or wrong, but to provide the
> information how this implementation will interoperate with the rest
> of the world - now and in the foreseeable future. Especially
> if we go with the proposed format when results are not
> published and used for marketing.
Well said. Interesting points of contact are:
* other intermediates (proxies, caches)
* client software (user-agents)
* server software (origin servers)
* content providers' expectations
* end user expectations (?)
It's obviously the last two that I'm focused on, but the others are just as
worthy. However, they may be a somewhat more ambitious undertaking.
> There should be a series of tests and multiple levels of
> compatibility. Compliance with the letter of 2616 is also
> of some interest, this helps to predict interoperation with the
> future implementations. And you are right when you talk about
> looking for agreement on the common interpretation of the
> spec - this may be most probable direction of future developments
> one should take into account. Kind of problem is that such discussions
> will inevitably push us into the HTTP development area. Is this
> good or bad? I'm not sure.
One way to find out! Seriously, there's a lot of ground to be covered there.
As Jeff mentioned, if there are ambiguities or conflicts in the spec, now is
the appropriate time to raise them with the wg.
-- Mark Nottingham, Senior Developer Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:28 MST