httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frys...@w3.org>
Subject Re: W3C <-> Apache
Date Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:58:53 GMT
At 10:32 2/9/98 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:

>> > >Any rough timelines on it?
>> >
>> > Nope.
>> 
>>   Yep June 97, at that time we will give an answer to the initial question
>> whether an object-oriented model is suitable for HTTP and will allow a
better
>> evolution of the protocol. Maybe no, maybe yes, in both case we will
>> justify our answer with more than words ...
>
>Right. And you'll have done it without _any_ consultation with the
>developers of the most widely used HTTP server. Good plan! (not).

Hi Ben,

I was forwarded your note from Daniel Veillard - I am not subscribed to the
Apache developers list, so please forgive me as I haven't seen the rest of
the thread.

There are some often seen misconceptions in your mail that I want to put
straight:

1) Web experts like you folks are most welcome to participate in W3C work
and it is not a general requirement that you are from a W3C member. What
_is_ a requirement is that when you sign up, you donate a significant part
of your time to actually work on the project. This rule is in order to make
sure that we don't have a lot with good intentions but little time to do
much about then other than producing a lot of mail.

It is also a requirement that you follow the rules of the chair of the
working group of which parts of the project is public and which is member
only. The reason for this is that the W3C is now in a position where the
press follows everything we do and say and when and if things leak, it
takes a lot of time to put things right.

That is why I am very concerned about the recent leaks of information onto
this mailing list that I rightfully understand have made you upset. The
information that I have seen go by did not represent HTTP-NG in a rightful
way. I would be happy to help in any way that I can but it requires that
somebody from the Apache group signs up to participate.

2) W3C is committed to work with the Web community following the rules of
running code and rough consensus. W3C has been a first class player in all
IETF WGs where we have participated, joining in on both freely available
sample code and spec writing. I think that the development of HTTP/1.1
pipelining was an excellent example of how I worked together with Dean
Gaudet on improving both the libwww sample code and the Apache HTTP/1.1
support.

3) We are not in any way trying to define a new HTTP protocol without the
collaboration with IETF, Apache, or any other significant player in the Web
community. This is a proto type project where we try to find out if we can
base the current Web model on top of a distributed object system and still
maintain the flexibility and simplicity of the Web. I have many good
reasons for why this might be a good idea but it takes time to actually be
able to evaluate it in practice.

In HTTP-NG, we have been looking into how we can use the Apache server for
handling HTTP-NG - exactly for the reasons you mention - it is a great
server with a great performance! We have not been able to get Jigsaw to
perform as well due to its Java based implementation.

But let me make it clear that as with everything in life, you have to ask
to get on board. In the case of HTTP-NG we ask for 50% of your time, I know
it's a lot but it is helping us guarantee that we actually make progress.

Again, I would be very happy to see active participation from the Apache
group - until now I haven't heard such a request - but would be happy to
get input from 1-2 people!

If you do not think that 50% is a reasonable or practical amount of
participation then we have another forum called the HTTP-NG Interest Group
where participation isn't constrained to participation but of course the
impact on the project is lower.

Thanks,

Henrik

--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk

Mime
View raw message