On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Hans Granqvist wrote: > >> It seemed to me that the original request might be more easily (if >> only partially?) satisfied by creating an "implementation guidelines" >> document, to which the different library implementers might submit >> their "gotchas" and where we could agree "best practices" (not yet >> mandatory) such as the ones suggested by JR, and help those who are >> implementing their own libraries. > > > I'm all for pragmatism, but this is slightly disheartening. If the > spec is > tight enough, why the need for "implementation guidelines" and > "gotchas" > and "best practices"?
Because the spec. details the minimum needed for interoperability, not "everything". If we find that indeed something which appears to be a best practice is something that should be mandated, then by all means it should affect a future version of the spec. JR's examples were, I think, good ones - things that affect specific implementations but not mandatory sections of the spec. > > > If we're too far from a RI, then that IMO points at the spec not being > good enough from this point of view, and we're looking for quick and > dirty fixes. > > An attempt at an RI would certainly help IETF-bound people and > organizations, too. I'm not disagreeing that an RI would be nice. - johnk > > > Hans > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
