Re: Arena workaround compromise?

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> I've thought about this a bit.  While people who really want to experiment
> with attributes in content-type returns *can* go through .asis or .cgi, it's
> a kludge and they really shouldn't have to go through those kinds of hoops.
> What I *really* don't want is for someone to ask "why did this break?", and
> for me to have to tell them that we deliberately broke it in the 0.6.2 ->
> 0.6.3 transition.
> 
> However, if the code is #ifdef'ed, I can tell the guy instead to just compile
> with -DW3O_SUCKS, or some such, until such time as the W3O sees fit to 
> release code which complies with their own standards.  (Gee, do I sound 
> peeved?)  So (he asks with trepidation), who has a problem with this?
> 
> rst

I support this decision. +1  (BTW - Nice voting form RobH?)

I have to ask "does the W3O have Apache"?  Should someone offer
Apache for a test server?  (subtle hint) It would be hard to write
standard complient code without a server that behaves as such.  I
would assume the the W3O is tuned in enough to be aware of these
things, but who knows...