- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:14:10 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > I appreciate that you have other things to do; meanwhile what would you > suggest for people who do have time to contribute and would very much like > to see the specification more accurately reflect what works? It sounds like you are asserting that a change to the specification is what's needed here, which is different from the conclusion that I reached. I have researched these test failures before and for each them at the time I roughly knew why each implementation was doing what it was doing. And then based on that I decided whether the specification needed adjustment or not. Obviously that is a series of judgment calls and for particularly hairy cases I've asked for input. However, I've done this trick of defining something that's already implemented in non-interoperable fashion by multiple user agents and then getting them to converge several times. And in my experience at some point the attempt to convergence needs to start to get the feedback that can finish the specification. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 07:14:38 UTC