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

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
>> James Graham 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.
>> Agreed by whom?
>> Firefox can be updated easily.
> I'm surprised by your level of confidence here. What are you basing
> the above statement on?
> What we can and can not put in a dot release is a very complicated
> matter. For example we are responsible towards distributors that have
> very conservative views on what is appropriate to put in a dot
> release. Our by far over reaching goal with dot releases is to make
> people more secure. If there's a risk that a behavioral change breaks
> even a small number of websites we risk that people choose not to
> install a dot release in order to keep their used websites working. We
> already have much bigger problems than we'd like to get people to
> upgrade to the latest dot release.
> So unless you have talked to firefox people out of band about this
> specific issue, I would change the terminology from "firefox can" to
> "we should check if firefox can".

Well, it *is* being updated regularly.

Whether Mozilla chooses to push a HTML5 compliance issue fix into a dot 
release is of course up to Mozilla to decide, but *technically* it's not 
a problem, as far as I can tell.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 18:35:39 UTC