httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: DNT & IE10 (was svn commit: r1371878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:59:22 GMT

On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> I think we are all in agreement, however, that MS is
>> violating the standard... are we not?
>> With that as a given, do we Do Nothing? I don't think so;
>> We shouldn't, by action or inaction, permit violations. Now,
>> with that as a given, the question is How Do We Respond.
>> At the very least, the commit sparked some interest and
>> involvement, even if much of it was worthless and clueless.
>> I like the idea of using that as a "door-opener" for an
>> Open Letter. Ideally, in that letter we explain the problem
>> and the rationale for the commit, we also explain how
>> to *remove* the "offending" commit (even though it's pretty
>> ez of course) and that we are keeping the commit in place
>> until such time as MS changes course, but we are aware that
>> it could affect adversely affect "innocent" users and so
>> we want to make sure that they have all the info they need
>> to remove it.
>> The idea is to restore the transparency... If we had made a
>> more public "splash" about this, maybe it wouldn't have created
>> such a storm of uncluefull backlash; it's the idea that we
>> did something "sneaky", I think, is what some people find
>> (understandably) upsetting.
> I don't think it is a transparency issue so much as a poor choice of
> venues for airing the disagreement.  We've put something in the .conf
> file that many administrators will need to remove and almost none will
> have a need to keep.  The message to Microsoft, such as it is, suffers
> because of that.

I agree.

View raw message