W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-56

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:18:11 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilsaKoG3qkHVznZg_J8594gkNGPRfESG5t1560F@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> Consolidating replied:
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> Er, the link doesn't work, but the original text that you intend
>>> to restore is not consistent with your change proposal.  The text
>>> that I originally objected to does not recognize the distinction
>>> between input strings and URIs, and in fact deliberately misuses
>>> the term URL in a misguided attempt to "fix" a problem that never
>>> existed in the first place.  Restoring bad text will not address the
>>> issues in your rationale.
> [...]
>>> Most implementations store most (if not all) of these components
>>> or intermediate forms as a byproduct of parsing and display,
>>> usually in the equivalent of a DOM.
>> That's fine with me.  I don't know what the specific text should be.
>> I was mostly suggesting reverting http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245
>> as a starting point, but the text you have above seems like a
>> reasonable starting point as well.  It's going to take some study to
>> figure out exactly what the right text is, but the exact text isn't
>> essential to the proposal.
> Roy would prefer his suggested text as a starting point, Adam does not have a preference. In the interests of a proposal that can enjoy the broadest support, does anyone else have a preference one way or the other?
> Does anyone disagree with Adam's suggestion that, regardless of the starting algorithm, the WG should be free to improve its details further as a result of compatibility research?
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> == Proposal Details ==
>>>> The proposal details herein takes the form of a set of edit
>>>> instructions, specific enough that they can be applied without
>>>> ambiguity:
>>>> 1) Revert http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245.  (Note: the editor and
>>>> the working group should feel free to continue to improve this text
>>>> after adopting this change proposal.)
>>> Er, the link doesn't work
>> Oh, it's not a link.  It's an SVN revision, e.g., for use with svn
>> merge -c -http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@3245
> Is there a human-readable link available? That would make it easier for the WG to evaluate the proposal.



Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 04:19:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:21 UTC