Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals from Tab Atkins Jr. on 2010-04-16 (public-html@w3.org from April 2010)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:40:30 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <y2udd0fbad1004161340re8ed0de6rf8c2b3db90af7b95@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> Basically I'd be ok with splitting the requirement regarding "same input"
> into two, one for how to handle the same URL with the same bytes (as a
> MUST), and one for how to handle less strictly identical input (as a
> SHOULD, since it would likely require storage). Would that work?

I'd be happy with that.  It seems to more clearly capture the existing
MUST that I wanted, and additionally layer an extra SHOULD on top
where my suggestion is silent, which addresses more cases better.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 20:41:22 UTC