- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:20:49 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24591 --- Comment #16 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #10) > Actually, for ”the trunk” - HTML 5.1 - it was Hixie that made table@border > disappear. ANd it appears to have happened in his “giant clean-up of 2013“ > on Nov 07, 2013: > <https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/5f540174f5fde713e45b72c81e530fb5d964d2df> > > Before that date, @border is in, starting with that date, @border is out. > > Hixie stated in his commit message this: ”No normative changes.” > Thus, evidently, the omission of @border - a normative change - was an error. > > The dog might be burried in the following commit message: > ”W3C editorial note: Added several missing FORK markers, [...]” > So Hixie may have blundered w.r.t. to where he placed his new FORK markers. > > So, I would once more expect the editors to fix Hixie’s mishap. > And to not use his mishap as pretext or evidence for anything. > > (For HTML5.0, this error only appeared in mid-January.) point of clarification. Hixie does not commit to the w3c HTML spec. We have a WHATWG branch that is updated as hixie makes changes to his spec. The w3c editors cherry pick from those commits to apply to html 5.1/html5. Where the w3c.whatg specs differ we generally have markers to indicate a divergence to avoid overwriting intentional differences. What occurred was that during the cherry pick of a large commit the 'border text of the w3c spec got overwritten, a mistake on the w3c editors part. I believe this has now been corrected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:20:51 UTC