- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:05:59 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11393 --- Comment #15 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-02-28 23:05:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > > That's a lousy way to deal with this. Basically, you are leaving a spec bug in > and seeing if implementors take the trouble to realize that the spec is wrong. No, I'm trying to minimise spec churn by avoiding making non-critical changes to a stable part of the spec. > 1) Admit that it was a bad idea to prematurely spec optimizations instead of > speccing the intended conceptual model. I agree that it turns out that the spec model is suboptimal, though before this bug nobody, including you, had shown this to be the case. I do not think the current model is a premature optimisation (or indeed an optimisation at all). It's just a different way of approaching a particularly thorny problem. > 2) Edit the spec to describe the intended conceptual model (which is already > implemented in Gecko in order to avoid having to tweak the code every time we > find yet another failure of your optimization to match the conceptual model). With all due respect, what Gecko does _isn't_ the intended conceptual model. The intended conceptual modal was the (now known to be suboptimal) model in the spec. (In reply to comment #11) > > talking to our parser guys, we like the conceptual model Henri presents and, > irrespective of the conceptual model used in the spec, would prefer to > implement the behaviour that you would get from fixing this bug. Thanks, that's good information. -- 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, 28 February 2011 23:06:00 UTC