- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:34:44 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > From the current state of the discussion, it seems like removing Atom > conversion would draw the weakest objections. > > It also seems like there are technical issues left to work out, and it would > be good to decouple those from HTML5 Last Call, since the Atom conversion > feature is tangential and logically built on top of HTML5 itself. > Furthermore, we currently have no implementation experience with this > feature, and it seems like the details are tricky enough that we won't know > the right answers until we have some. > > It seems to me that dropping Atom conversion for now would help clear the > path to Last Call, and would not preclude bringing back HTML5 ==> Atom > conversion either as a separate spec or in the main draft if the technical > issues are worked out to everyone's satisfaction, and we have enough > implementation experience. We have some promising discussions, but they > don't seem to be converging quickly on consensus. > > Ian previously indicated he's willing to drop Atom conversion from the W3C > copy of the spec. > > Therefore, I agree that the most sensible option for now is to drop Atom > conversion. > > Would anyone object to this course of action? I object to summarily removing it. If it does become an LC blocker, I'd support removing it; it'll remain the WHATWG version of the spec in any case. I believe the issues with the algorithm are minor and can be resolved quickly, though. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 21:35:36 UTC