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>  
wrote:
> 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
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 12:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:07 UTC