- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:42:16 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:25:51 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the > > chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do > > have. If no objections are raised to this call by 26 January 2011, we > > will direct the editor to make the proposed change. If anybody would > > like to raise an objection during this time, we strongly encourage > > them to accompany their objection with a concrete and complete change > > proposal. > > If we accept that the rules should be the same as in HTTP we should just > reference HTTP instead so it is more clear the same code path can be > used. We can't, because HTTP doesn't define how you parse invalid headers. Also, it's clear that what HTTP does define is definitely not compatible with what browsers implement. It's less clear how much Julian's proposal for ISSUE-125 differs from what browsers implement (from what I can tell, it matches a different set of browsers than what the spec says, but is not a substantial improvement). I would encourage browser vendors to consider -125 and -126 in terms of what they are willing to implement. It is my intent to not write CCPs for these issues and to just update the spec in a few years to match whatever browsers have converged on. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 19:42:45 UTC