- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:50:49 +1100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 12/31/09 8:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> Also, right now, with they way the spec is written, it's >> not a bug, because it's spec conformant. > > Why? Not all "correct" software behavior is required by specs, so not all > bugs are bugs just because they're violations of a spec. > > For example, crashing is generally considered a bug, but is not prohibited > by any specs in the usual case. I don't think that's a fair comparison. "Not crashing" is not a feature that is written into the HTML5 spec. But "autobuffer" is a feature in the HTML5 spec. > Using up all the user's memory: same thing (in fact, sometimes specs > actually require it). > > I can understand the desire to have the spec make it clear that lack of > autobuffer attribute means the author is requesting that the UA not > autobuffer the content. See, I don't subscribe to this. In my opinion there are three things that the author should be able to specify: 1. I don't care about autobuffering and leave it to the browser 2. I know that autobuffering would be lethal in this situation and therefore request the the UA not autobuffer 3. I know that autobuffering would be really useful in this situation and therefore request the UA to autobuffer That's why on/off/not specified makes sense to me from an *author* POV. That *browsers* may decide to implement the same strategy for 1 and 2 is beside the point. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 1 January 2010 01:51:41 UTC