- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:42:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7386 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-02-06 10:42:36 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: actually ended up adding a reference Rationale: I tried to do this, but I really couldn't find a way to do it that: (a) didn't introduce tautologies (like "A cache host is an object that hosts a cache" or something equally inane). (b) didn't say anything technically wrong (like the proposed "A cache host is the object that maintains an association to an ApplicationCache" — it's no the case that all the objects that maintain an association to an ApplicationCache are cache hosts). (c) didn't make the text make no sense in complete.html (e.g. talking about "other specifications" to mean another section in complete.html). (d) didn't introduce gratuitous differences between WHATWG and W3C versions. Web Workers and HTML5 really are just one spec, they're just split for W3C process reasons. This becomes very visible when trying to make the relationship one-way only like this. While doing all this I found another place that referenced Web Workers from HTML5, so I added another reference. If anyone has any suggestion for how to do this, please feel free to suggest what the text should be. I do see the argument that suggests that all the worker-related appcache stuff should be in the workers section and the appcache section should only talk about Documents, but I just can't really make it work that well in practice. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 10:42:38 UTC