- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:02:49 +0000
- To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- CC: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > I'd be reluctant to change the syntax; we have two interoperable > shipping implementations that support the current GCPM syntax. > > http://www.wiumlie.no/2014/tests/books/footnotes-ah.pdf > http://www.wiumlie.no/2014/tests/books/footnotes-pr.pdf > http://books.spec.whatwg.org/#footnotes > > > That's certainly a concern. I do not think it should be a concern at working draft stage. These early implementations can be very useful when we try to answer questions like 'how should it work do in this case?' when the spec doesn't yet say. Someone already thought of it and implemented it, and that's always interesting input.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 16:03:21 UTC