Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> 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.


Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 21:35:36 UTC