- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Sam Ruby wrote: > > If there is a consensus to fix these and other bugs, then I would > support an Atom mapping remaining in the W3C HTML5 spec. I'm happy to fix real bugs, if they are reported. Bug 7806, however, has already been fixed to the extent possible in the HTML5 spec. What Julian escalated was not the original reported bug, which was in fact fixed; what he escalated was a request to say that if an implementation didn't conform to the Atom specification in one very specific case that is arguably not always possible to achieve, that implementation should _also_ be considered not conforming to the HTML specification. This seems to me to be idealistic language lawyering with no value. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:26:01 UTC