W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

Re: w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:57:41 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1410071647310.12123@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 07:45, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> 2. I never said MUAs implement exactly what's in the spec, that's out of
>    scope, you read my words too fast. I said companies need to know what
>    is the stable spec basis for implementation in the browser they're
>    testing. This is different.

There is no "stable spec basis for implementation in the browser". That's 
the whole point. Browsers don't use (and shouldn't use!) snapshots to 
implement their browsers. If they did, they would be implementing known 
bugs that other browsers aren't implementing. (At the most trivial level 
this is obvious: browsers ship more often than specs get snapshotted, yet 
they differ from version to version, so they can't possibly be 
implementing a single snapshot of each spec each time.)


> > Having a snapshot specification does not serve the purpose that you 
> > describe as needed in this argument
> 
> And how do you know?

You described a purpose that does not match what the specs do, for the 
reasons I described in depth in my last reply to you.

It's possible that there is some other purpose that you mean to describe, 
which is a real purpose that is in fact met by the snapshots. However, 
what you have described so far isn't it. Or maybe I misunderstood it, in 
which case please do try to explain it again in more detail. Maybe walk me 
through an example with concrete references to actual snapshots and a real 
browser to show me how it would work.


> You can say that you disagree, that is fine; but your firm response  
> no, that does not do the job  is absolutely not authoritative.

Ok. I'm not trying to be authoritative. I'm trying to explain my point of 
view, and am trying to explain why your arguments have not convinced me. 
That's all.


> > > It is just insulting hundreds of thousands of people.
> > 
> > It is insulting nobody.
> 
> Oh trust me, it is. That's fine if you don't want to see it, but your 
> perception of facts will not alter others' perception of facts.

Could you elaborate on this? Who is it insulting? How are you interpreting 
it such that it becomes an insult?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 16:58:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC