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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:27:13 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001051227l22ea6779r280c0f861ac87c3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, 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 Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Graham 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.
>>>
>>> Agreed by whom?
>>>
>>> Firefox can be updated easily.
>>
>> I'm surprised by your level of confidence here. What are you basing
>> the above statement on?
>>
>> What we can and can not put in a dot release is a very complicated
>> matter. For example we are responsible towards distributors that have
>> very conservative views on what is appropriate to put in a dot
>> release. Our by far over reaching goal with dot releases is to make
>> people more secure. If there's a risk that a behavioral change breaks
>> even a small number of websites we risk that people choose not to
>> install a dot release in order to keep their used websites working. We
>> already have much bigger problems than we'd like to get people to
>> upgrade to the latest dot release.
>>
>> So unless you have talked to firefox people out of band about this
>> specific issue, I would change the terminology from "firefox can" to
>> "we should check if firefox can".
>
> Well, it *is* being updated regularly.
>
> Whether Mozilla chooses to push a HTML5 compliance issue fix into a dot
> release is of course up to Mozilla to decide, but *technically* it's not a
> problem, as far as I can tell.

Sure. I don't just don't see why it's different for firefox than any
other browser. Even IE is updated fairly regularly with security
fixes. And technically I don't see that any other couldn't do the same
too.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 20:28:06 GMT

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