At 08:22 AM 9/10/2001, Lloyd Wood wrote:
In general, I think that foo-over-blah is the foo group's problem.
Thank you for that bit of philosophy. It is reasonable. However it is not
mandatory, as exemplified by the competing philosophy that I have already
provided.
]
Meeting the needs of the top layer is imo best understood by the
top-layer group
Again, a reasonable starting perspective, but not one that guarantees the
best outcome in all cases.
> My own view is that the IETF has very strong skills at doing protocols and
> the W3C is strong at doing formats (content). That suggests doing the
> convergence protocol in the IETF.
I would say that everything is a protocol, to be parsed and processed.
Computer Science discussions sometimes combine the exchange rules and the
format and sometimes treat them separately. hence the term protocol
sometimes means exchange rules and content and sometimes means only
exchange rules. For example, SMTP is a protocol, and RFC822 is a
format. They are handled separately. (Well, technically, RFC822 has a bit
of user-to-user protocol in it, for such things as Reply, but mostly it is
about formats.)
In any event, please refer to the IETF/W3C agreement to split HTML and HTTP
standardization efforts.
> In any event, the specification has been written. Are there any TECHNICAL
> problems with it?
And now I see that you did not respond to the only important question...
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464