- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:54:42 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 07:50 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Zhiheng Wang wrote: > > > > > > Philippe and I sync'ed up after the F2F meeting last Friday and we've > > > decided to resolve these references and making the spec (mostly) > > > self-contained. I am going over the references and see > > > > > > - if it's a concept, we can leave the reference as it is. > > > - if it's a process, we will keep a snap shot of the referred section in > > > the current draft. > > > > That seems like a really bad idea... what if the definitions change? The > > worst possible outcome would be for the two specs to diverge, resulting in > > conflicting requirements. > > > > What problem does doing this solve? > > We need to get Navigation Timing to REC and waiting 3 years isn't > practical. Why would you wait 3 years? > If the definitions change in HTML5, it will break the Navigation Timing > implementations in any case and we'll need to revisit our spec since > some of our attributes may not make sense anymore. So what difference does it make if you depend on the HTML spec or not? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 17:55:12 UTC