- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:25:26 +0200
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- CC: WebApps Working Group <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2012-08-06 13:08, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/07/31 20:06), Arthur Barstow wrote: >> On 7/19/12 11:15 PM, ext Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/thread#msg518 I completely missed that comment of yours when you originally sent it, which is why I didn't address it back then. >> Lachlan, Kenny - what is the status of this comment (f.ex. does the spec >> need to be changed)? > > I think this is a very minor issue, and it has a simple workaround - > mark it as undefined. However, if Lachlan doesn't feel like paying extra > fee for versionning (what Anne calls "make work") or he thinks having > "undefined"s in a spec significantly lowers the quality, I think that's > fair enough and I suggest the way to move forward (if we really want to) > is to consider my comment as retracted (let's just do so if Lachlan > doesn't reply to this). I'd rather find a way to address the issue. I've just been a bit busy with other tasks for the last 2 weeks to look into this. I'd like feedback from implementers about how best to address the issue. The options I can think of: 1. Disallow all comments within the selector for this API. Throw SyntaxError when they are used. 2. Allow comments, but define that unclosed comments should throw a SyntaxError. 3. Allow comments, define that unclosed comments are silently ignored. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 11:25:52 UTC