Re: Second, revised MDN Implementation Report

> On 9/29/02 at 10:11 PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> >I guess I wonder about this logic.  the dispositions don't seem like 
> >protocol features to me, they seem like status codes.
> >
> >do we really think we need to deprecate any status code that doesn't 
> >have at least two implementations currently generating it?
> 
> Actually, yes. Insofar as documenting disposition types (or status 
> codes) involves documenting their semantics, I really would want two 
> implementations to show that people were able to implement the spec 
> without screwing up the semantics. Remember, the extension mechanism 
> exists so that new types can be introduced. When two people do get 
> together and agree on the semantics of a new type, they can document 
> it and bring it along to draft standard (and perhaps incorporate it 
> into the main document at that time). Otherwise, we risk having a 
> type that no one can seem to get right.

perhaps you are right, but I think these are far stronger criteria
than we've applied to e.g. RFC 1893.  and while I'd love to have more
uniform implementation of 1893 codes, I think that all of the codes
(even those that are seldom-used) are valuable and I would hate to
deprecate the ones we could not find two implementations for.

Keith