- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> > >
> > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/content-072.htm
>
> HTML5 allows the defer attribute to be defined as 'defer="defer"'. If
> it is defined that way, and it is in the case
Am I looking at the wrong test?
$ curl http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/content-072.htm 2> /dev/null | grep '<script'
<script defer type="text/javascript"></script>
$
This looks to me like a "defer" attribute with no value specified. Am I
missing something?
> > > Unfortunately we only really have the HTML 4.01 spec to rely on.
> > > It's the only current HTML Recommendation available for CSS.
> >
> > This is false. This HTML specification now is more mature than HTML
> > 4.x has ever been and can be reliably used as a reference:
> >
> > http://whatwg.org/html
>
> Like I stated the HTML 5 spec is not a Recommendation. The link points
> to is a Draft.
The above specification is more mature than the HTML4 specification.
> > If we all agree then why are we even bothering to have this
> > discussion? We don't have to blindly follow process rules that make no
> > sense.
>
> We don't blindly follow we evaluate and create policies based on
> discussion an compromise. Those policies should be followed or we have
> all sorts of problems.
Apparently, following the policies is also giving us all kinds of
troubles, for example you want to refer to HTML4 even though it is a long
obsolete and known-incorrect specification for which a suitable and more
mature replacement exists. :-)
> Again at this time that pointer has to be to a Recommendation or
> Proposed Recommendation.
14 of the 18 normative references in CSS 2.1 are neither Recommendations
or Proposed Recommendations. Either you are wrong, or the policy is wrong,
or the specification is already violating the policy. In either case, I
see no problem referencing the specification cited above.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 21:32:34 UTC