- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 22:27:49 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, smontagu@smontagu.org, Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
I'm normally ok with that. But this time for this value, I prefer to defer to Level 4. That should have been clear enough even with the current text, but it was misread. I don't think adding notes helps much. To me, the benefits of having this value with "at risk" is very low, and the risks overweigh much higher. Maybe you and I have different views on how much possible this value can be implemented in reasonable time frame, which determines the value of keeping. We could ask WG if you think that's the case. /koji On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:11 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 01/28/2015 08:52 AM, Koji Ishii wrote: >> >> The problem of leaving it as at-risk is that another shorter value, >> "sideways", has a dependency on the at-risk value, and thus is a >> possible source of an interoperability problem. >> >> I prefer deferring earlier than later. Doing so saves test costs as well. > > > Then we mark both at-risk together, and clarify that > implementers are only allowed to implement 'sideways' > if they implement it according to the actual definition > in the spec and not the one in their head. :) > > ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 13:28:16 UTC