- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:28:17 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12148 --- Comment #6 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-02-21 21:28:16 UTC --- > How would you propose that this burden of proof could possibly be met? For pure markup stuff like this, there have been a number of studies of web content out there; some done by Google using their data others done by people examining dmoz pages and whatnot. > There was FAR less of a standard of proof necessary for the async=false > breakage. That was a situation where UAs disagreed and a behavior had to be chosen, no? This is a situation where every single browser for the last 10-15 years has done something and you want to change to doing something else. Or am I missing something here? > Would something like that be sufficient to move the ball forward, That would make it a lot easier to convince implementors, yes... Whether it would be enough, I don't know (I can't even speak for Mozilla here, much less other implementors). > I'm suggesting that this is a whole different class of problem No. It's really not. The content is still there, and fixing it is just as much work. It doesn't matter that much what the _intent_ was of it being there, and even the mechanics only matter if there are some sort of tools generating this sort of markup. -- 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 Monday, 21 February 2011 21:28:19 UTC