- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:20:33 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Monday, August 10, 2009 5:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > >>> I marked <bb> because both Microsoft and Mozilla have raised fairly > >>> strong concerns about implementing it in its current form and > >>> because Ian has stated that he won't place anything in the final > >>> spec that doesn't enjoy a 100% conformance rate among UA > >>> implementations. > >> > >> <bb> does not look even remotely likely to cause a perma-thread. In > >> fact, your text above explains why. > > > > That's because the perma-thread criteria wasn't applied to the <BB> > > element, this one was: > > > > - It must provide normative functionality that UA manufacturers have > > asserted that they will not support as-is. > > Since Ian is incredibly responsive to implementor concerns, even in the > face of massive flamewars (see for instance the codec issue), it seems > like a waste of time to mark such issues, and gives a misleading > impression of their actual degree of controversy. I agree with Maciej. I don't believe there should be special treatment for UA manufacturers and it seems premature to mark a section as controversial after two e-mails and little discussion. I would very much like to hear feedback on the <bb> element though, particularly related to the notion of an on page element compared to something more declarative. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 03:22:59 UTC