W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 12029] Define a process for "particularly exceptional circumstances"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:36:31 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pnv2t-0000bK-1y@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029

--- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-02-11 15:36:30 UTC ---
I don't think atob() and btoa() qualify as "new features".  They've been
implemented interoperably for years by all browsers other than IE, and the spec
merely codifies existing behavior.  They're extremely unlikely to be
controversial, since the functions are very simple and the definitions given in
the spec differ from how current browsers work only insofar as they standardize
error handling.  Removing the definitions from the spec now will only delay
interop on an existing feature.  In particular, I wrote thorough tests for the
spec with the intent to submit them to the HTMLWG test repo, and now I have
nowhere to submit them.

So I would like to ask you (Sam) for clarification on whether, given the above,
you think atob() and btoa() need to be removed from the spec.  If you do, then
I'd like to ask that either you confer with Paul and Maciej and officially ask
Ian to keep them removed, or that Ian re-add them, since the original e-mail
clearly said that features would only have to be removed if the chairs (not
just one chair) requested it.


Additionally, when this bug is officially handled, I'd like clarification
specifically on whether full specification of editing commands
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/dnd.html#editing-apis> would count as a "new
feature", since I'm now working on that.  It would be a lot of new spec text,
but again, just standardizing an existing feature (where we have very little
interop).  It's the sort of thing that would probably have to be tweaked a lot
in response to implementer feedback, but I don't see it as likely to raise
objections as long as it's just standardizing existing behavior.

If standardization of editing APIs is considered too large a change to make
now, I'd like to hear plans on how and when this sort of thing can be
considered again.  It should be obvious that we don't want a huge gap where no
new features are added to HTML a la HTML 4.  The spec text can always be
submitted at the WHATWG, but there would be no central place to submit tests
(unless we want the WHATWG to fork the W3C's tests, which I'm not even sure the
license would allow).

-- 
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, 11 February 2011 15:36:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 11 February 2011 15:36:36 GMT