[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless (was: PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational)




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 something.

If autodiscovery could be defined as in [1], I'd happy to see Firefox
(and IE7) have bug reports on "standards" compliance: I do not use
current autodiscovery implementations because I'm not confident in
their (undocumented) behavior (among other things, like integration
with external aggregators). I'd like autodiscovery documented
somewhere, but not as a documentation of current practices (which I
think are Bad Things), rather as "clean" way to do it.

However, if any spec (informational or not) tends to only document
what's already done, be sure I'll try to "kiil it before it's done".

--
Thomas Broyer