Hiya, (Quoting ekr, but not really replying directly to him...) On 19/03/2019 17:55, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point would > be the HTML Priority of Constituencies: > > > https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies > > "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over > specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to > the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn > should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be > given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be > given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons > alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple > constituencies at once." > > I've certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that > helps one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to > take this document. Some of the mails on this seem miss to the point that the draft, as written, is about handling conflicting needs, along the lines ekr describes above. So it may be worth re-iterating that the abstract of the draft [1] says: "This document explains why, when a conflict cannot be avoided, the IETF considers end users as its highest priority concern." The "when a conflict cannot be avoided" bit seems to be a bit lost in some mails. Personally, I fully agree that we(*) can't only consider the humans/users, (stuff has to actually work in the real world too), so a draft that said something so absolute along those lines would be likely to founder as some folks have (I think) been saying. But the text in Mark's draft isn't saying that, at least as I interpret it. Cheers, S. (*) The "we" there I think works regardless of what path to publication this draft might or might not take. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-07
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
