On 15.03.2011 17:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/12/2011 10:32 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> The plan is to issue a decision on issue 125 by 1pm EDT on Tuesday and >> to either post a decision or a plan for issue 126 at the same time. > > Decision and plan have now been posted: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0304.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0308.html > > When do you plan to update your proposal for issue 148? If it is not in > the next few days, we will likely proceed with a Call for Consensus on > the Proposal that Philip has offered. > > - Sam Ruby Hi, the resolution to ISSUE-125 removes the claim that this is a willful violation of HTTP, required by existing content. This is good, as I have shown that it's *not* required by existing content (IE8 does not behave as described). In the meantime, IE9 *does* implement the described behavior. I think this is very unfortunate, because it wasn't needed, will add unnecessary confusion, and also make future extensions much harder. That being said, as Microsoft apparently believes this is a good thing, I'll retract my change proposal (the other aspect of it being addressed by the resolution to ISSUE-125). Best regards, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 13:11:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:33 UTC