- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:50:10 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 08/16/2012 10:16 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 8/16/12 10:00 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> With that assumption, can you explain why you believe that people would >> rather push to drop that part of the test suite over deferring that >> particular feature to HTML.next? > > Because it's not a "feature" in the normal sense. Other parts of the > spec depend on the session history section to actually be well-defined. (once again, assuming that the assumption spelled out in the previous email[1] is operative for the purposes of this discussion) Such parts can be enumerated, and then either stubbed out or removed. This process can be repeated as often as necessary. I'll assert that large parts of provably interoperable behavior will remain. Do you disagree? Jame's default assumption[2] seems to be that people would prefer to publish something known not to work than to exclude it. Others seem to prefer pointing people to editors drafts that contain content that is known not to reflect (current) reality. Others have argued for waiting until we meet a standard that HTML4 didn't meet. I'll express a preference for a smaller, sooner spec. If that means that we need to task the Working Group with identifying features that are known not to reflect (current) reality, and to task the editors with removing such, then I am entirely OK with that. > -Boris [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0244.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0234.html
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:50:41 UTC