Re: Squid, WebDAV and the SEARCH method

Putting the project to one side may remove any issues related to changing
standards, but the issue - what to do if there are large numbers of users
using a draft or interim standard remains.

Take 56k modems for an example of the very same issue.

I think the vendors approach there was sensible.. deliver what is defined or
semi-stable, and as standards get ratified adapt.

Of course each developer can decide...

basically I think a case by case approach is the best method.

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Fowler" <tech@leedsnet.com>
To: <squid-users@ircache.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Squid, WebDAV and the SEARCH method

> At 12:34 PM 6/23/00, Simon Rainey wrote:
> >Agreed, but Micro$oft have a habit of pushing new technology into the
> >marketplace well before it becomes a standard. Until MS loses its
dominance
> >of the desktop I guess we'll need to keep up.
>
> Many observers feel that Microsoft wouldn't recognise newness in
> technology even it if came with the authority of John the Baptist.
>
> Keeping up with Microsoft, if not an oxymoron sounds like an internet
> version of a 'slow bicycle' race
>
> > >Ok. So it is still under evaluation then..
> > >
> > >drafts are preleminary documents.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Henrik Nordstrom
> > >Squid hacker
>
>
> Internet drafts such as the one referred to here also expire, and this one
> expired in January this year. There are two relevant points:
>
> Should high profile open source projects such as squid ever pander
> to drafts as an alternative to improving standards compliant behaviour
> and performance (I think no)?
>
> Once the draft has expired should we not put the project on one side
> until the prime movers have got a new draft in place?
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html
>
>

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html