ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion

2000-03-20 16:55:19
Whereas I believe your proposal leapfrogs shortsighted into the realm
of lunacy.

hey, I'm quite willing to entertain criticism and feedback, but
a label like "lunacy" seems completely unjustified.  nor does
it tell me much about the problems you see with it.  (and I
am trying to understand these)  the most I've been able to glean
thus far is that people will misuse parameters in various ways.
even granted that this will happen, I still don't see that it's
"lunacy" to consider that path.

Of course it isn't wrong to consider it. But make no mistake about it: You are
opening up MIME and redesigning it in a fundamental way here. Even if the
change was a sensible one this would be *extremely* dangerous, and I would
probably oppose it on these grounds even if I thought it was a good idea.

But IMO this change isn't even remotely sensible -- and I have explained why I
believe this in great detail already. But you continue to advocate it in spite
of all this. This I consider to be lunacy. You may not like this
characterization, but I call them as I see them, and that's how I see this.
(Actually, lunacy is the kindest term I could come up with.)

and I'm also willing to consider alternative ways of doing this,
including the -xml frob.

That is not what you have indicated.

but I think it's worth looking at
the implications of these alternatives with respect to content
negotiation.  and I completely don't buy the arguments that people
aren't going to want to recognize these frobs in content negotiation
mechanisms, or that these considerations don't matter because they're
not part of the current proposal.

They would matter if and only if there wasn't a separate viable solution to the
the negotiation problem. But there is such a solution. Why not simply use it?

                                Ned