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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-125

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 03:13:44 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011140258500.11018@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> But as long as you don't supply evidence that all of them do the *same* 
> wrong thing, there's no reason to require that behavior "for 
> compatibility with existing content".

FWIW: I'm not going to write a counter-change-proposal on this issue. I 
don't personally care what we end up converging on, I just think it's a 
waste of everyone's time to make what we converge on be anything but the 
minimum distance from where we are now. However, if the working group can 
convince the browser vendors to make a bigger change to their behaviour, 
that's fine by me. My only concern is that by speccing something further 
away from the status quo than possible, we end up pushing the point in 
time at which we'll reach interoperability to even further away, and I 
really think that's bad for the Web. So whatever we do, I think we should 
make sure the browser vendors are on board to implement what we end up 
speccing.

Note that eventually, when the browser vendors converge on something, 
that's what we'll have to update the spec to say anyway, regardless of 
what we think of what the browsers do.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 03:14:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC