Re: ISSUE-94 Change Proposal

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> I support the idea of this proposal. To split browsing contexts,
> Window, History, and similar concepts out into a separate
> specification.
> Unfortunately this proposal is IMHO not detailed enough to produce
> such a split. Much less to review if the split fulfills its intended
> goals of producing a simpler HTML5 specification.
> For example, how should be specified given that
> it's a HTML specific feature, but heavily intertwined with browsing
> contexts? How do iframes interact with History.back()?
> I'd love to see someone take the original HTML5 document and produce
> an actual split, this way we can debate the details of that split. I'd
> imagine that if someone did this I would likely vote for such a change
> proposal.
> If I were Ian and the current change proposal were approved, I would
> have no idea what to do.

That's a good point, and I'm aware that an actual two documents would
have been best, but this was one I just didn't have time for.

I'm not necessarily comfortable doing this action, either. I really do
feel that the browser companies would have the best view of what is
"browsing context" as compared to not. However, I am comfortable with
HTML/XHTML/DOM, so maybe I could have swung it.

Seriously, if I had the time, I would have tried a split, as well as
general "readability" edit. I'd also love to take a shot at an author
guideline, including incorporating some of the new accessibility
information. Unfortunately, due to financial considerations, I have to
severely curtail my involvement in this group after these issues.

If the co-chairs feel this one isn't detailed enough, I'm afraid it's
going to just have to die. And that's unfortunate, for the browser
companies, and the spec.

> / Jonas


Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 21:47:57 UTC