- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:53:43 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11540 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED CC| |ian@hixie.ch Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #11 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-01-11 05:53:41 UTC --- 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: no spec change Rationale: Comment 1 is correct. > The willful violation clause is most unwise. A standard should not violate > another standard for any reason. I disagree. That's a reversal of the priority of constituencies. Users, authors, and implementors are all more important than spec purity. > This wouls lead to 2 things : 1) Content correctly encoded content would > never be displayed correctly. This is already the case. > 2) All future > standards would need to include the same clause, making them more complex and > weakening the standards defining the charsets. I don't see why this would affect other standards. -- 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 Tuesday, 11 January 2011 05:53:45 UTC