httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: DNT & IE10 (was svn commit: r1371878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:24:40 GMT
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.

Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message