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

Re: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:15:47 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001050615x53dc86f5x125ebdf43929b7fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Michael A.Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:42 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/10 14:31, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> And autobuffer is from which released specification, where we have to
>> worry about legacy use?
>
> Usage is a matter of quantifiable fact, not a matter of W3C Rec track
> status. If it is agreed that the legacy implied by released Firefox makes
> the attribute name "autobuffer" unsuitable to resuse at this time it is
> strictly irrelevant whether the legacy came from following a "released
> specification", proprietary invention, an unintended bug, or an amazingly
> improbable set of cosmic-ray induced bit flips on the build machine.
>

As I mentioned earlier, UAs, authors, tool developers should be
constantly aware of the state of this spec. It is not in LC yet. There
is a very real possibility of change, especially if the change is to
the betterment of all.

As for Firefox and its implementation of autobuffer, unless we want to
apply the same blessing to "all" user agents--and I mean all--usage
now does not imply that usage in the future will be acceptable or
conforming.

To repeat: we are not a rubber stamp organization.

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 14:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT