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

Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0100
Message-ID: <49749F67.1060101@opera.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Simon Pieters wrote:

> I don't see any reason to rush with removing it from the draft until 
> it's in another spec. Opera is interested in implementing it so we'd 
> rather have it specced somewhere than not specced.
> 
> Also, having it included in the WHATWG version but not in the W3C 
> version could only lead to confusion, so I don't see that as desirable 
> either.

I see any situation where the WHATWG and HTMLWG versions of the spec 
diverge as strongly undesirable. The potential for confusion, both in 
the small ("You said foo was in section 2.8.3 but I can;'t find it") and 
in the large ("why have the WHATWG forked the HTML 5 spec?") seems too 
great.

In cases like this where the completion of an action cannot occur on 
schedule for some reason, I suggest we either just demote the issue to 
RAISED or invent some new flag like "BLOCKED" meaning "the issue cannot 
be resolved until some external condition X occurs", where X must be 
specified and could be something like "An ID is written for the feature 
in the IETF" or "Hixie reaches the point in his editing cycle that the 
spec can be updated").
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 15:41:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT