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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-126

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:41:28 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vl9j7ep164w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:38:30 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> On 14.11.2010 12:35, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:56 +0100, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 13.11.2010 22:49, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> I don't have strong data on the compatibility impact of this specific
>>>> change, but when we diverge from both Firefox and IE, it is rarely on
>>>> purpose, and matching them has almost always fixed bugs, even if we
>>>> didn't know it at the time.
>>> I'm confident that it really doesn't matter in practice, in which case
>>> we should default on being consistent with the base specs.
>> Because you are confident? Specifications are at the bottom of the
>> priority of constituencies. Better safe than sorry in my opinion.
> But how do you know it's safer when UAs currently do not agree on  
> processing, and seem to get away with it?

As Maciej indicated, they are starting to converge.

> Sometimes it *really* doesn't matter, in which case considerations like  
> consistency and re-usability of code should be taken into account.

It is funny that you say that while also advocating having separate URL  
processors throughout the code.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 12:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:27 UTC