RE: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification

We should all remember that the following text is in the Status section of each HTML5 WD:



====

Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways. Vendors interested in implementing this specification before it eventually reaches the Candidate Recommendation stage should join the aforementioned mailing lists and take part in the discussions.

The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any section of the specification, one can usually find many members of the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea that the working group should even spend time discussing the concept of that section.

====



/paulc



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329





-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shelley Powers
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:16 AM
To: James Graham
Cc: Henri Sivonen; Michael A.Puls II; Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich; HTMLWG WG
Subject: Re: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification



On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:42 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/10 14:31, Shelley Powers wrote:

>

>> And autobuffer is from which released specification, where we have to

>> worry about legacy use?

>

> Usage is a matter of quantifiable fact, not a matter of W3C Rec track

> status. If it is agreed that the legacy implied by released Firefox makes

> the attribute name "autobuffer" unsuitable to resuse at this time it is

> strictly irrelevant whether the legacy came from following a "released

> specification", proprietary invention, an unintended bug, or an amazingly

> improbable set of cosmic-ray induced bit flips on the build machine.

>



As I mentioned earlier, UAs, authors, tool developers should be

constantly aware of the state of this spec. It is not in LC yet. There

is a very real possibility of change, especially if the change is to

the betterment of all.



As for Firefox and its implementation of autobuffer, unless we want to

apply the same blessing to "all" user agents--and I mean all--usage

now does not imply that usage in the future will be acceptable or

conforming.



To repeat: we are not a rubber stamp organization.



Shelley