For me it's a matter of the fact that the spec has gone through 6 revisions and two design overhauls since it was first pitched. It's been out there for quite a while. At some point, the design discussions need to end and it needs to stablize so that folks can do something real with it. If, during that process, some folks get annoyed, so be it, that's the nature of the game. No spec is perfect, nor should we waste our time trying to make them so. Is the spec good enough? I think so. Are there any functional bugs? I don't think so. Can the spec text be improved? Definitely, and I'll likely do so one more time between now and when it's actually submitted for consideration as a standards track RFC.
- James Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: >[snip] > I do find a bit hard to swallow though the "implemantators do it that > way so let's not update the RFC" which is still a draft, even if an > advanced one. I simply wonder what is worse, to annoy a few vendors now > or a wider audience in the future. > > Anyway, so be it. I won't argue and I leave you the final word on this > one ;) > > - Sylvain > >
