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

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-56

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <19519.12301.4581.915341@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: mjs@apple.com
Cc: w3c@adambarth.com, fielding@gbiv.com, public-html@w3.org
I found Roy's text easy to understand and the steps in the
algorithm he sketched are clear to follow --- I would suggest
starinwih that text and refining as need be.

Maciej Stachowiak writes:
 > 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.
 > 
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Maciej
 > 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist                              
Email:  raman@google.com                                
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/                  
Google: tv+raman                                        
GTalk:  raman@google.com                                
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc    
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 15:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC