- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:13:24 +1300
- To: Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>wrote: > I'm a little leery of spec'ing something that has negative performance > implications. > So am I, but surely making non-over operators slower is better than making them not work at all --- especially if the former situation is temporary. The latter decision would have to be permanent. Rob -- Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 21:13:51 UTC