Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

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 

> "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
> "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