PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Robert Sayre
James M Snell wrote: I do believe that participation in this discussion is optional, as is choosing whether or not to support any particular IETF draft (informational or otherwise) so there is absolutely no need (or desire) for you to waste your time here. Nonsense. You know very well that

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Thomas Broyer
2006/11/28, Robert Sayre: Nonsense. You know very well that projects I work on will get bug reports on standards compliance if you change something. So, yes, I do have to waste my time here. Since I maintain autodiscovery code people actually use, you'd think my opinion would count for

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Rogers Cadenhead
If the Atom/RSS autodiscovery spec describes how to work with the link element to achieve feed autodiscovery in browsers and other clients, isn't it an application of (X)HTML rather than an attempt to specify (X)HTML? My thinking was that we're accomplishing a task similar to the creators of the

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Robert Sayre
Rogers Cadenhead wrote: My thinking was that we're accomplishing a task similar to the creators of the Robots Exclusion meta tag [1] -- put X values in element Y to achieve effect Z. Hmm, have to disagree. The behavior is already well-documented, so this isn't accomplishing much. This

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Rogers Cadenhead
--- Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there some aspect of the WHAT-WG document that bothers you? Not yet, aside from the notion that they've got an incredibly ambitious goal -- spec the next HTML/XHTML/DOM -- and I have no idea how to gauge the likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Robert Sayre
On 11/28/06, Rogers Cadenhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no idea how to gauge the likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether they'll respect current autodiscovery functionality in MSIE 7 and Firefox 2.0. My experience is that the IETF is essentially unresponsive to backward compatibility

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Tim Bray
On Nov 28, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: They already know how, in general. The WHAT-WG is the place to work out edge cases in HTML semantics. Over the course of history, a remarkable number of different groups have jumped up and down and said *We're* the ones defining HTML!!!

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Robert Sayre
On 11/28/06, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 28, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: They already know how, in general. The WHAT-WG is the place to work out edge cases in HTML semantics. Over the course of history, a remarkable number of different groups have jumped up and down

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)

2006-11-28 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 6:16 PM -0500 11/28/06, Robert Sayre wrote: On 11/28/06, Rogers Cadenhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no idea how to gauge the likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether they'll respect current autodiscovery functionality in MSIE 7 and Firefox 2.0. My experience is that the IETF is