Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 18:35:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:06 UTC