W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2008

[Bug 5752] Parsing should be specified for future updates

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:50:54 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K9sFi-0007WH-2m@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5752


Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX




--- Comment #19 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>  2008-06-21 01:50:53 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> These really aren't areas where we have any flexibility to be honest. Parsing
> is an incredibly complex area and the constraints within which we have to work
> are very, very tight. The current parsing model was based on extensive research
> over billions of documents and multiple independent implementations and I don't
> see any way that we could change what you are asking for.

(In reply to comment #15)
> Rob: In general though I must point out that browser vendors are (rightfully)
> far, far more paranoid about this stuff than your comments suggest you are. For
> good or for bad, we have to be as paranoid as they are, or they will ignore
> what we tell them to do.

Noting the above technical assessment from the editor ("I don't see any way
that we could change what you are asking for.") and agreeing with the agreeing
with the sentiment that any implementation changes related to this proposal
will need to negotiated with browser vendors. This does seem like something
that browser vendors are not likely going to want to change without a clear
proposition for the business value to them and their users for doing so.

So, I will be closing this issue out as far as bugzilla discussion of it goes.

But note that does not in any way mean that this is somehow the terminal point
in discussion of the issue. It simply reflects that fact that after quite of
bit of discussion within bugzilla and an analysis of the issue by the editor,
it seems clear that we do not yet at this point have a definitive mandate for
spec'ing out any changes related to this feature and including them in the
HTML5 draft.

So I think the next best step in the lifecycle of this issue is for Rob (or
anyone else with a strong interest in seeing this get spec'ed and implemented)
to take the appeal directly to implementors -- for example, by posting a
message to public-html and perhaps to other lists specifically asking browser
vendors and other implementors to provide feedback on it.

That is not to say that browser vendors and other implementors are the only
stakeholders whose views are important. It is just acknowledging the fact that
feature proposals that have not yet shown a reasonable likelihood of actually
getting implemented are not proposals that we can as a group afford to invest a
lot of time in. In particular, the time and attention of the editor are a key
asset for the group, and we need to be very careful about not misusing that.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 01:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 June 2008 01:51:29 GMT