Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:46:42 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> 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.

Right. Although it is probably true that there are real bugs in there, it  
appears that a lot of the Web actually works, using things that are in  
HTML5 and not in HTML4.

>> 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.

It's going to be used in lots of ways. Some of them won't actually work.  
Some of them are ways that people are currently using HTML4, and even with  
the bugs what we have is now an improvement on that situation in almost  
any circumstance I can think of.

cheers

Chaals


-- 
Chaals - standards declaimer

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:17:29 UTC