- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:09:51 +0200
* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >I think you misunderstand my position. I'm weakly against the proposal >in question; the strongest argument in favor of the proposal is that >there is either a current or future deployed base of data: URIs that >won't work without it but do work in either past browsers or some subset >of future ones. > >Of course the simplest way to prevent the future URIs thing being a >problem is for UAs that don't follow the URI spec here right now to fix >that, but I haven't sensed much willingness to do that in the past, or >earlier in this discussion. :( > >Given the choice between converging on this proposal and the status quo >in which UAs just do wildly different totally wacky things, I'd pick the >proposal, I think.... I read Daniel as saying that Firefox now implements the correct behavior but the definition of "correct behavior" should be changed to allow some addtional convenience for no reason other than convenience. So he would make the same suggestion even if everybody implemented the correct beha- vior. If the argument is "but this breaks too many sites" or "we think that some vendor or other will not implement the correct behavior due to convenience issues" or whatever other reason, we would have a different argument. -- Bj?rn H?hrmann ? mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de ? http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 ? Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ? http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dageb?ll ? PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ? http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 20:09:51 UTC