PUBLIC MARKS with search ietf

There seems to be broad agreement that the time is ripe to start work on a new version of HTTP in the IETF, and that it should happen in this Working Group.

karl says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm There is a missing opportunity from both monolingual search engines and content providers. It’s kind of sad. The fact to have one unique URI that a French user can just paste to his Japanese friend is one wonderful thing of content negotiation. How do we leverage this, so search engines are able to understand it? Enter the never used 1998 RFC: “Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP” (RFC 2295). http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2295 I wonder what it would take for Google to negotiate with content providers and offering this feature. The solution is super simple. We were living in a world where sites were quite monolingual but this has changed since.

it is just bad design to assume a closed universe

The slides could be improved by mentioning a few things more.

slide 19 – W3C didn’t pay for the logo work.

slide 21 – The WHATWG announces that they rename their document as HTML Living Standard. The snapshot which is published on W3C Web site under *patent policy* will be html5

slide 39 – The W3C has always said it was out for community review.

slide 56 – Things are cut from specs when there are not at least a double implementations of each features (Candidate Recommendation). It is the *normal* process. Nothing new. No aggressive timeline.

slide 69 – W3C here is W3C members. It illustrates a disagreement in between W3C members.

slide 82 – Microsoft is not joining the WHATWG because of the lack of patent policy. Nokia is not there, Access (NetFront) is not there, etc.

slide 93 – What are secret rules? The W3C Process is public, most of the WGs have their work in public. Specs are published in public.

slide 94 – Many working groups are open to public participation without fees. Example: HTMLWG.

slide 95 – False. There is a majority of Not For Profit and Affiliate companies.

slide 96 – False. By W3C Process, every member has one voice. W3C is a community of members. The listen is a bit strange.

slide

slide 98 – W3C members decided to move away from HTML brokeness and tried to move a cleaner markup leveraging on XML. We know it didn’t work and retrospectively it was a mistake.

slide 99 – False. The W3C moved from RAND (like IETF for example) to RF (Royalty Free) to give a safer environment for developers.

slide 102 – W3C said: “Be careful if you use the technology in production. There is no full interoperability yet”.

slide 107 – WHATWG people are exactly the same people that are working inside W3C Membership. Part of the work btw is done by the W3C webapps WG by the exact same people.

slide 125 – is spot on! ;) unfortunately.

Pour rappel, WebSocket est un nouveau protocole, standardisé par IETF et inclus dans HTML5.

Sauf que la version WebSockets de l'IETF n'est pas exactement la même que celle de HTML5. D'ailleurs quel HTML5 ? Celui du W3C ou celui de la WHAT Task Force ?

Oct 04, 2010

karlpro said...

HTTP gives you a way to handle the right user (agent) interaction. In the discussion there is a missing piece above. What is the URI? The HTTP code will give information about a URI and its evolution in time. For a user agent, is it a fixed one or temporary one? I'm surprised you didn't use a 307 Temporary Redirect. The information accessible at this URI is not accessible anymore, you can send the client to another URI with with an Expire field, with the information that the client has reached its limits and should retry the original URI in xxxx minutes. What is happening on the server side, machine limits, disks, etc. is *not* important and not part of the exchange of messages. Think about what is useful for going to the next meaningful interactions in terms of messaging (for a human or a software).Note also that HTTP WG is at work to define HTTPbis and it is the right time to have contributions of people who have real implementations issues. I would encourage you to send an email to the HTTP Working Group at ietf-http-wg@w3.org with the link to this blog post and an introduction.The draft documents are available at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/

Speaking as a long-time Web Developer, I'm appalled by the dismissive

and insulting attitude taken by the constituency dictating HTML 5 as

pertains to the standards that myself and those like me are perfectly

capable of understanding, by declaring repeatedly that we're a bunch of

morons who can't understand resource/representation or anything else

the vendors are hell-bent on changing, as justification for said

changes ignoring those well-understood standards.

Which motivates me to participate in this thread, because I don't want

that vendor-centric approach to pollute HTTPbis, rendering the spec so

large and unwieldy that only browser vendors could ever hope to

understand its meaning, in terms of what they've implemented. A big,

emphatic -1 to the notion that HTTPbis should follow HTML 5 down the

road of standardizing error correction behavior for user agents, for

C-D or anything else.

this note is against the IETF common practice, so we invite Ian to

remove it.

Ian Hickson : l'Anelka de la spécification.

The W3C does not, and never will, publish real standards because it is not a standards organization: It's a CONSORTIUM (you know, that "C" in W3C is there for a reason - look it up!). Standards and Standards Bodies must be endorsed by governments and legally enforceable. W3C recommendations are simply "recommendations". There is no legal consequence to not following or fully conforming to a "recommendation"...

C'est étrange cette manie des participants à la WTF à mélanger tout et n'importe au nom du pragmatisme (plus loin dans son commentaire, Marcos Caceres explique en quoi un "vrai standard" n'est pas pragmatique pour le web). Pour rappel, selon lui l'ISO ne produit pas de standards, pas plus que l'IETF, etc... Sur sa page publique, il indique "I work as a software architect/standards engineer for Opera Software." Selon sa définition, Opera ne supporte aucun standard, donc il est au mieux architecte logiciel. Et en même temps, c'est un hsivoniste, donc il reconnaît qu'il n'y a que les développeurs de moteurs CSS qui savent gérer les mutations d'une structure en arbre, ceux travaillant sur le DOM n'en ayant pas les compétences. Marcos Caceres ne travaillant pas sur le moteur CSS chez Opera, on en déduit qu'il ne sait pas très bien manipuler les structures arborescentes. Donc en fait, selon lui, il est au mieux développeur junior chez Opera.

To make the statistics below, I took a set of proxy<->server HTTP transactions between the www.win.tue.nl proxy and off-campus servers (18 days worth of traffic, approximately 150Mb in 14501 HTTP transactions)

The HTML 2.0 specification, RFC1866, defines an SGML application and an Internet media type. The specification notes that extensions are planned, but only the text/html; level=2 internet media type and the "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN" document type are defined. This document suggests the use of URIs as system identifiers for document type definitions, allowing decentralized evolution of the language. The use of marked sections as a transition technique and the continued use of the level mechanism for standardized points in the evolution path are discussed.

The HTML 2.0 specification, RFC1866, defines an SGML application and an Internet media type. The specification notes that extensions are planned, but only the text/html; level=2 internet media type and the "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN" document type are defined. This document suggests the use of URIs as system identifiers for document type definitions, allowing decentralized evolution of the language. The use of marked sections as a transition technique and the continued use of the level mechanism for standardized points in the evolution path are discussed.

sr - sam ruby, IBM : IETF is a black hole. I'm not thrilled with them. But it has an external perception of being open.

This document proposes a standard format and a standard navigation mechanism so that mail stores can provide interoperable access to mailboxes and messages over HTTP. Mailbox contents and listings of mailboxes are exposed as Atom Feeds, while messages themselves are downloaded as a document of type message/822. Each mailbox and each message is assigned an HTTP URL, and if permissions checks are satisfied, each message may be downloaded independently.

Second, according to sources close to the development, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) — which met in New Delhi on the 22nd of this month — is reviewing the ISO transparency issue while simultaneously exploring alternate standards which emerge from bodies like the W3C and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

The HTML WG has several times expressed a strong preference that HTML be officially extended only by standards-track "versions", not by registered extensions. This is the reason why proposed individual feature extensions are being handled with experimental RFCs, rather than as standards-track ones. The responsible Applications Area Director would prefer that IANA start a registry of this type only in coordination with that WG, lest the registration mechanism become an alternative to normal IETF processing.