- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:46:42 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 8/16/12 10:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > (once again, assuming that the assumption spelled out in the previous > email[1] is operative for the purposes of this discussion) > > Such parts can be enumerated, and then either stubbed out or removed. > This process can be repeated as often as necessary. > > I'll assert that large parts of provably interoperable behavior will > remain. Do you disagree? I suspect that pretty much everything other than maybe the parser depends on the event queue setup and on navigation in the end.... We can perhaps work around this by just saying that parts of the event processing model and of navigation are undefined, I guess. > Jame's default assumption[2] seems to be that people would prefer to > publish something known not to work than to exclude it. That really depends on the uses the REC will be put to. If it's going to be used as a club, with demands that UAs implement the REC exactly as written and legislation to that effect (not hypothetical; has happened with specs before), then it's better to exclude things than to publish wrong things. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 15:47:12 UTC