Julian,
On Mar 17, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think we all assumed good faith on Julian's part until it became
clear he was trying to game the system to prove a point. I'm glad
he finally
I was not.
Just because I added an ironic remark about the process doesn't mean
that I did not raise the technical issue with good reasons.
My impression was that you made your proposal not because you actually
wanted it accepted, but because you suspected it would be opposed, in
order to demonstrate a point about other features of HTML5 (such as
content sniffing) that touch on HTTP, i.e. that similar arguments
apply and they should also be rejected. I was not the only one to get
that impression. Since it sounded like that was your intent, I really
didn't want to discuss the feature on the merits any further. If that
was not your intent then I apologize; but that certainly wasn't clear
from your emails.
Now, from the combination of your statements, I'm still unsure what
you intend:
1) Do you sincerely think HTML5 should require particular handling of
the Content-Disposition header, despite in all other cases arguing
strenuously against specs "profiling the underlying protocol"? If so,
then that deserves to be discussed on the merits, and I apologize for
cutting you off. (I happen to think that on balance it's not worth
adding to HTML5, but that should be discussed on the list.)
2) Did you raise this proposal to show that the arguments against it
also argue for removing other features that are already in HTML5? In
that case, please make your point about those features directly instead.
I assumed these were mutually exclusive options, but I suppose you
could have both aims. If so, then mixing them up makes things even
more confusing to readers, since they cannot even tell if your
proposal is made in good faith.
Regards,
Maciej
