* Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-04 12:20]: > Quoting "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >+1, standards aren’t there for people to cherry-pick the parts > >they find convenient or useful. > > If interoperable implementations for standards are not > possible, they are useless. The goal of having standards is > interoperable implementations. Opera has removed support for > Content-Location (or least partially, not sure of the details) > for the same reasons as Firefox. > > (This also isn't really about convenient or useful...)
Yes. I considered adding a long diatribe about standards, but decided against it. In short, I know that standards are not an end in themselves and that is not what I’m trying to say. Interop is always the end goal; and that’s exactly why it’s as important not to cherry-pick standards as it is to not follow them blindly. It’s a tight-rope walk. Departure from a standard is necessary sometimes but must be well considered implentor consensus, otherwise you might as well have no standards at all. And if that becomes best practice, it should be codified (that is the right way to write standards, after all). Etc etc. Let’s not go into all this; it should be clear. I’m not principally opposed to opposition to `Content-Location`; it just seems like a precarious proposition to have specs start to arbitrarily limit the applicability of select other specs. That way lies spec interaction madness in unforeseen scenarios. If there is a real problem, the appropriate reaction needs to become established best practice outside of specs and then should be codified in the appropriate upstream spec. Let’s not willfully make things even more complicated than they already are. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
