W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 7158] this is a discribing comment

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:27:49 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NslbZ-0004GT-Bz@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7158


Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lmm@acm.org
             Status|VERIFIED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |




--- Comment #2 from Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org>  2010-03-19 23:27:49 ---
Just spot-checking the closed issues. It seems like the comment has something
to do with the "Garbage Collection" section. Why is Garbage collection a part
of the hypertext markup language and associated APIs? How could this be tested?
 Isn't this just an implementation technique? Do all JavaScript implementations
have to use the same style of garbage collector?

For example, the term "strong reference" is used. There is no particular way of
determining whether a garbage collector exists, uses strong references, uses
some other garbage collection technology. This section might belong in an
implementor's guide, but it doesn't belong in this document, as it doesn't even
apply to any particular conformance class, isn't the result of "reverse
engineering".

If there's some invariant here that this implementation advice is trying to
hint at, the invariant isn't clearly specified. "Pointers shouldn't become
invalid"?


-- 
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 Friday, 19 March 2010 23:27:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 March 2010 23:28:01 GMT