On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > So, you're saying that you can't work in this environment (*fans self*) > because of the arguments you're making? I'm saying this is why I don't want to work here, yes. > >> References, please. > > > > This very thread is evidence enough, but see also the complete > > disinterest in fixing the URL specs > > Also? I thought that was what we were talking about... The disinterest spans many years. This thread demonstrates not so much the disinterest so much as the lack of understanding that there's a problem to fix, which is a bit of a different issue, though equally frustrating and equally discouraging. > > or the reaction abarth got from MIME sniffing > > AIUI Adam walked away from it because two people expressed individual > concerns about it. Had he stuck with it, I'm personally convinced it > would have gotten through pretty easily. The question here is "why do people walk away from the IETF or not participate in the IETF". Adam walked away. It doesn't matter whether he would have been able to get his stuff done if he'd stayed -- the fact is he walked away, so if you're looking for reasons why people walked away, it's a relevant data point. Imagine you're trying to sell me a car, and I think the car is ugly, so I don't buy it. Then you're trying to figure out why people like me don't buy the car, and you ask me, and I say it's ugly. It doesn't matter if you think it's the prettiest thing in the world; if your goal is to sell me the car, then I can't think it's ugly. Now if your goal _isn't_ to sell me that car, then that's fine. > > or the disaster that was hybi > > I personally think websockets was a bad idea from the start, so I'll > refrain from further comment. Whether WebSockets is a good idea or not is besides the point. The point is that the hybi group was not a pleasant experience for me. If I were to be in a position to do Web Sockets again, I would decline the opportunity to do it through the IETF. Doing it through the IETF made the work take a year longer than it would have, made the protocol less secure (the WG removed a number of defense-in-depth features), and made the spec a mess (it's a mishmash of different editing styles). Plus, the group _still_ hasn't done multiplexing, which some of the vendors said was a prereq to implementation, something which, prior to the IETF getting involved, was only 3 to 6 months out on the roadmap. > > ...or the way IANA registrations for MIME types get handled > > ... the process for which was recently revised, based partially on those > experiences. If it was revised more than about 2 weeks ago, the problems aren't solved, based on what I've seen in the past 2 weeks. > > or HTTP bis' reaction to browser feedback > > As far as I know, we addressed all of that feedback to the satisfaction > of those who brought it. If you believe otherwise, we're currently in > WGLC. There's a number of people who raised feedback who gave up trying to get it addressed, but I haven't been following this closely enough to tell you what those are, because I gave up too. > > But the original question was "why don't you work at IETF", and that's > > the answer. It may be that you conclude that it's a good thing, > > therefore, that I and others don't work at the IETF, but in that case > > you shouldn't complain when we go and do stuff outside the IETF. > > Again, I'm not stuffed about the venue, and you can do what you like. > However, when the *W3C* does things that interact with IETF > technologies, we coordinate to make sure that there aren't overlaps, > conflicts, etc. Yeah, well, I've mostly given up on the W3C, too. :-) Anyway, this URL work isn't happening at the W3C. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'