Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Proposed Recommendation

On 2014-09-08 12:32, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 08/09/2014 12:19 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-09-08 12:03, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> I hear your discomfort, but I think the above would (meaning no
>>> disrespect) give lawyering precedence over pragmatism. Sniffing is not
>>> optional; it is, however, defined orthogonally.
>>
>> How can it be non-optional if you don't have a spec defining it?
>
> Because for better or for worse we live in a world that is not entirely
> defined by specifications, but also in decreasing but still important
> part by existing deployed implementations. It's not optional in that you
> really just can't write a (useful) browser without this.

Yes.

> The fact that there isn't a spec is a problem (in general, for the Web)
> but isn't a specific concern of HTML.

Well, it is a concern if the HTML spec say "you must do this", and then 
can't say what "this" is.

>>> How about this: I add a warning to the reference that conveys your
>>> concerns?
>>
>> Yes, please make a proposal!
>
> """
> As of today the Web community lacks a sufficiently complete, reliable,
> interoperable, and tested specification for the manner in which content
> sniffing takes place on the Web. We encourage implementers to exercise
> caution in this area as the Web community makes progress towards
> addressing this issue.
> """

Adding this is certainly helpful, because it somewhat manages the 
expectations of those who are actually trying to implement what the spec 
says.

That being said, it doesn't really address my concern that you still 
have a "MUST do something that isn't defined". That being said, as I 
seem to be the only one concerned about it, I'll now shut up :-)

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 10:42:18 UTC