- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:29:21 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcin, (Sorry, process dictates that I have to keep sending these for each of your emails:( ) For the sake of the disposition of comments, can you please acknowledge that you are satisfied with the responses of the working group in this email thread. A response from you is required for us to progress the document to CR. If we don't receive a response by the 21st of June, we will assume you have accepted the comments and no further action is needed. If further action or clarification is needed on your part, then please let us know ASAP. Kind regards, Marcos On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:18 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: >> >> I understand that the implementations may have arbitrary path lengths. >> But to ensure the interoperability from the very beginning, some >> reasonable limit could be put already. >> E.g. 1024 bytes for the maximum path length. > > We've been there and done that, and it's a bad idea. It means that content > that is perfectly fine and works everywhere is classified as invalid. And > in practice no one cares about such limitations anyway — specifications > shouldn't try to define conformance beyond what implementers are likely to > do, it's just a waste of good pixels. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ > Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/ > > > > > > > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:30:19 UTC