On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > > There hasn't been a discussion at all, so far. > > Please don't be too pedantic. There has been a discussion between > vendors, it just wasn't public. For which I have already apologized.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, nor am I referring to private conversations (which are irrelevant to the standards process) nor conversations on the W3C canvas list (which is about a forked specification which is plagiarising my work against my will, and so irrelevant to the WHATWG). All I'm saying is that there hasn't been a public, vendor-neutral-venue discussion about the names in the WHATWG spec. > > Right now the spec says it's "drawSystemFocusRing()" and > > "drawCustomFocusRing()", because there hasn't been a request to change > > it. > > The WHATWG spec says that. The W3C spec was changed in January as a > result of the aforementioned discussion. It's sad that we need to > qualify which spec we're talking about, but we do. The W3C spec (and its over two dozen variants, because having just the W3C and WHATWG versions wasn't confusing enough so the W3C decided to make it even worse [1]) is irrelevant and should just be deleted, IMHO. [1] http://damowmow.com/temp/canvas-specs On Mon, 5 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > Dominic brought up that the name was confusing on WHATWG: > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-September/252545.html The name-related discussion in that e-mail is conditional on a condition that's false, so not really. Just so we're clear, I really don't care what the name is, nor do I have any objection to people having private conversations or whatnot. My point is just that there has not been a conversation in the WHATWG list about this which has resulted in the name being changed. Everyone is talking about this like the new name is a foregone conclusion, but since it's not what the spec says, that seems like a bad precedent to set. It'd be a different matter if the topic had been raised and I'd somehow refused to change it despite browser vendors and authors and so on wanting it changed. If I start doing stuff like that, then sure, ignoring the spec is the way to go. But what we have here is confusion resulting from the W3C having redundant venues, forked specs, and so on, and IMHO if we start cherry picking which specs we're following like this, we're setting a really bad precedent for future times when we have actually controversial things that different vendors disagree about. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
