- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:16:43 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 17:54 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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? Because the HTML5 spec won't be a REC before that. > > 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? The difference is that we will be allowed to move REC if we don't rely on a WD normatively. If we keep the current dependency, we cannot move. Philippe
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 18:16:55 UTC