- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:37:27 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 14.04.2010 23:25, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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 Disagreed, otherwise I obviously wouldn't have had to escalate it. > 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. The original bug was about two things (<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7806#c1>): > "Establish the value of id and has-alternate from the first of the following to > apply: > > If the article node has a descendant a or area element with an href attribute > that successfully resolves relative to that descendant and a rel attribute > whose value includes the bookmark keyword > Let id be the absolute URL resulting from resolving the value of the href > attribute of the first such a or area element, relative to the element. Let > has-alternate be true. > If the article node has an id attribute > Let id be the document's current address, with the fragment identifier (if > any) removed, and with a new fragment identifier specified, consisting of the > value of the article element's id attribute. Let has-alternate be false. > Otherwise > Let id be a user-agent-defined undereferenceable yet globally unique > absolute URL. Let has-alternate be false." > > WRT the last sentence: > > 1) Why undereferenceable? > > 2) It should be stated that that URI (not URL) needs to be the same for each > run of the algorithm. Otherwise it'll be just a random unique identifier which > would violate the requirement in > http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4287.html#rfc.section.4.2.6: "The "atom:id" > element conveys a permanent, universally unique identifier for an entry or > feed." For question 1) you gave an answer to that I wasn't satisfied with. That's "discussing", not "resolving". For question 2) you added a SHOULD wrt stability. So previously it was silent on this (bad!), but now it says that you can ignore the requirement in certain cases (bad in a different way). Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 08:38:07 UTC