W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Length of LC comment period

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912090945150.16061@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 
> > It seems pretty clear that multi-process UAs are refusing to implement 
> > the requirement. It also seems likely that more UAs will go 
> > multiprocess over time. Thus, it may not be possible to exit CR with 
> > this requirement.
> 
> For this case, I don't see why the spec can't just describe the expected 
> behavior and leave it to implementations to figure out how to solve the 
> issue. It seems like being algorithmically over prescriptive here will 
> lock people into certain architectures. If the prescribed behavior 
> proves to be impossible to implement during CR, then we can drop back to 
> LC and write the algorithm to solve this in prose.

That's what the spec does. The expected behaviour can't be implemented 
without the performance problem for multiprocess browsers.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 09:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT