- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:27:13 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Michael A.Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. Sure. I don't just don't see why it's different for firefox than any other browser. Even IE is updated fairly regularly with security fixes. And technically I don't see that any other couldn't do the same too. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 20:28:06 UTC