Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I think we are running up against my lack of understanding of your  
> view of
> how standards should work again. I'm still hoping that one day you  
> might
> continue our conversation wherein I was trying to understand where you
> were coming from:
> Without understanding your positions, I really don't know how to  
> address
> your feedback.

Yes, you do.  I have no respect for your delaying tactics, Ian.

> (For instance, above, you use the word "defined" in a way
> that is completely at odds with my understanding. A feature is fully
> "defined", as I understand it, by the combination of authoring and
> implementation conformance criteria, which we have for <a name>,  
> yet you
> do not consider it to be "defined".)

I use "defined" as it is found in any English dictionary.
The only thing HTML5 draft defines related to <a name> is browser
behavior in response to a fragment retrieval request, which
may be sufficient for a BROWSER that is limited to performing
view operations.  It does not define the attribute's meaning,
nor the reason one might find it embedded in "text/html",
nor the rationale for deprecating such content in favor of
id-decorated elements.  That is the difference between a spec
that merely defines one version of the language versus a spec
that supplants all definitions of the language, which is the
point of the issue that is being suggested for closure.


Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 22:41:09 UTC