- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
David Singer wrote: > I think that formal registries and Wikis are both useful. > > Formal registries can have well-defined entry criteria, expert review, > stability, references/owners/specifications, and so on (if they wish). > They can be trusted, stable. Trusted by whom and for what purpose? Not by browser implementors or Web authors. Who benefits from trusting that image/svg+xml doesn't exist (and presumably "cannot" be used) or from trusting that ISO-8859-1 isn't an alias for Windows-1252 when decoding? I can see value in stability if something is stable and right. However, I don't understand why stability is appreciated when things are stable and known to be wrong. (Where "right" and "wrong" are defined in terms of actual interop--not in terms of the RFC canon.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 08:46:23 UTC