On 3-Jun-07, at 1:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote:

> I thought at IIW we agreed that if we could come to quick consensus  
> on a
> way to resolve the problem it would be a part of 2.0, otherwise it  
> would
> not...

Agreed, nobody wants to delay 2.0 indefinitely if we can't agree on  
how to solve this issue. But the issue was deemed important enough to  
be one of the only two on the 2.0 agenda.

> As concerns with the fragment proposal have been raised, which had the
> most agreement at IIW, it seems we no longer have consensus.

I haven't seen many actually; checking this thread for what can count  
as concerns reveals only:
a) Josh's initial email
b) Johannes' +1 to not adopting a solution that doesn't actually work
c) David acknowledging the concerns

This doesn't seem to me to carry enough weight to veto the fragment  
proposal, especially when a) has been / can still be addressed, and  
the fragment proposal made sense to a dozen people at that meeting.

> As seen in
> this thread, there are a wide variety of opinions as to how to resolve
> this concern.  I thus think merely picking one for the sake of putting
> something into 2.0 would be misguided.

True, there have been a few (I definitely wouldn't call it a wide  
variety) possible solutions mentioned, but none very well defined,  
and none had the support of 10+ people like the fragment did.

I have argued that it will have to be core (whether 2.0 or 3.0). I  
guess we should ask ourselves then if we really want this addressed  
in 2.0, and if yes then try to make it work.

So I ask again - does anyone see any issues with the fragments being  
used like this:


If not, I have a hard time understanding where exactly the consensus  
was lost.


specs mailing list

Reply via email to