On 11/30/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The point to all this is that you shouldn't place too much weight on the status of the specification as a whole. You need to consider the stability and maturity level of each section individually. Thus, while proceeding with Autodiscovery as an RFC may yield a fully complete and endorsed specification more quickly than HTML5
Actually, the process you describe is pretty much identical to the IETF process in letter. For example, it took many years for RFC3986 to appear, describing URIs at the level of Full Standard. In practice, the WHAT-WG is more accountable, because there is a documented process for resolving disputes that actually empowers the group's participants. You'll find no such thing in the IETF, especially with an individual draft. The WHAT-WG is also much more rigorous in testing and research than the IETF, so I have to agree that there is little benefit to pursuing the Internet-Draft. Claims that the WHAT-WG is too slow are overblown at best -- getting something to "Proposed Standard" is not that interesting. The (active!) wiki at http://feedautodiscovery.org is rapidly eclipsing any other source on autodiscovery, and it can include information that would not be permitted in an IETF or WHAT-WG document, so it will always be more valuable and current. -- Robert Sayre
