Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5

[Also moving this off list as I don't think it's relevant to most.]

On 22/09/2014 16:06 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Robin Berjon <> wrote:
>> Right. So I can't speak for the people who are working on that, but I can
>> vouch that they are open to feedback and have no foul intention whatsoever.
> I've yet to receive replies to the feedback I gave when it was announced.

I suspect that pretty much everything froze with the objections. I'm 
pretty sure that Dan will be handling your feedback.

>> Overall, Anne's URL spec puts us all in a much better situation than we were
>> when we only had the RFCs. However, there are (likely mostly non-Web)
>> implementations and domains that are more strictly close the RFCs. If we
>> could keep those worlds separate, we'd all be fine, but of course these
>> things have a tendency to leak. As a result, some form of unified URL spec
>> that can work across the board makes sense to me (though it's not on my
>> personal high priority list). If there are people interested in the work and
>> it can be done through non-disruptive PRs I'm very much fine with it.
> It makes sense. However, so far we haven't even tested yet whether
> browsers can migrate from their current (somewhat broken) URL strategy
> to something that is slightly saner.

I was thinking about that. We have a test suite for URL but apparently 
it's not complete enough to cover all the ground (I haven't checked but 
IIRC Mike has). Would you estimate that we're at a point where we can 
try to prod browsers in that direction or do you reckon you need more 
tinkering on the spec first? If the former, I would think that a test 
suite would be a decent place to start.

> Let alone whether they can
> migrate to something they never conformed with in the first place and
> which was written while simply ignoring important deployments.

Yeah, I can't say that's something that worries me deeply now. We can 
see if that bridge is worth crossing when we get there. The previous 
part is far more important.

Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 14:31:14 UTC