- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:37:20 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> I don't see what is particularly bad about adopting (a) or (b). What is the >> benefit of doing (e)? Is it worth the risk of breaking TV apps for end users >> if this ships to TVs via auto-update (assuming vendors don't notice any >> problems before actually shipping)? > > It's the straightforward interpretation of the spec's current > language. I've got no problem with other behaviors, but the spec > needs to change to match. I've no opinion on which is best if we're > just evaluating them all equally, and am fine with deferring to > Florian's preference for B. Based on the rough "can live with" consensus for B in this thread, and since that's what Samsung's chromium implementation does as reported by Florian, I'm editing the spec accordingly to specify that behavior. If further testing (additional browsers) reveals different results, we can reopen (issue 87). Thanks, Tantek
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 05:38:28 UTC