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

Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004142115380.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> If there is a consensus to fix these and other bugs, then I would 
> support an Atom mapping remaining in the W3C HTML5 spec.

I'm happy to fix real bugs, if they are reported. Bug 7806, however, has 
already been fixed to the extent possible in the HTML5 spec. What Julian 
escalated was not the original reported bug, which was in fact fixed; what 
he escalated was a request to say that if an implementation didn't conform 
to the Atom specification in one very specific case that is arguably not 
always possible to achieve, that implementation should _also_ be 
considered not conforming to the HTML specification. This seems to me to 
be idealistic language lawyering with no value.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC