W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

RE: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:20:33 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <749F45FA745A3244A87A63316D4E26B187C2200FBF@NA-EXMSG-C108.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Monday, August 10, 2009 5:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> >>> I marked <bb> because both Microsoft and Mozilla have raised fairly
> >>> strong concerns about implementing it in its current form and
> >>> because Ian has stated that he won't place anything in the final
> >>> spec that doesn't enjoy a 100% conformance rate among UA
> >>> implementations.
> >>
> >> <bb> does not look even remotely likely to cause a perma-thread. In
> >> fact, your text above explains why.
> >
> > That's because the perma-thread criteria wasn't applied to the <BB>
> > element, this one was:
> >
> > - It must provide normative functionality that UA manufacturers have
> > asserted that they will not support as-is.
> 
> Since Ian is incredibly responsive to implementor concerns, even in the
> face of massive flamewars (see for instance the codec issue), it seems
> like a waste of time to mark such issues, and gives a misleading
> impression of their actual degree of controversy.

I agree with Maciej. I don't believe there should be special treatment for UA manufacturers and it seems premature to mark a section as controversial after two e-mails and little discussion. I would very much like to hear feedback on the <bb> element though, particularly related to the notion of an on page element compared to something more declarative.

Cheers,

Adrian.
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 03:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT