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

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-56

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:04:43 -0700
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <452EE6A9-90AC-4903-B419-2D3D47D0CA0F@apple.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>

Consolidating replied:

On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> Er, the link doesn't work, but the original text that you intend
>> to restore is not consistent with your change proposal.  The text
>> that I originally objected to does not recognize the distinction
>> between input strings and URIs, and in fact deliberately misuses
>> the term URL in a misguided attempt to "fix" a problem that never
>> existed in the first place.  Restoring bad text will not address the
>> issues in your rationale.


>> Most implementations store most (if not all) of these components
>> or intermediate forms as a byproduct of parsing and display,
>> usually in the equivalent of a DOM.
> That's fine with me.  I don't know what the specific text should be.
> I was mostly suggesting reverting http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245
> as a starting point, but the text you have above seems like a
> reasonable starting point as well.  It's going to take some study to
> figure out exactly what the right text is, but the exact text isn't
> essential to the proposal.

Roy would prefer his suggested text as a starting point, Adam does not have a preference. In the interests of a proposal that can enjoy the broadest support, does anyone else have a preference one way or the other?

Does anyone disagree with Adam's suggestion that, regardless of the starting algorithm, the WG should be free to improve its details further as a result of compatibility research?

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> == Proposal Details ==
>>> The proposal details herein takes the form of a set of edit
>>> instructions, specific enough that they can be applied without
>>> ambiguity:
>>> 1) Revert http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245.  (Note: the editor and
>>> the working group should feel free to continue to improve this text
>>> after adopting this change proposal.)
>> Er, the link doesn't work
> Oh, it's not a link.  It's an SVN revision, e.g., for use with svn
> merge -c -http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245

Is there a human-readable link available? That would make it easier for the WG to evaluate the proposal.

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 04:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC