On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon <ro...@w3.org> wrote:
I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing the "Goals" section of the spec to cast
doubts about whether the direction the W3C envisions for the spec is
consistent with the goal that are the actual reason for the spec's
existence was a rather bad way to go about it.
For context, you are talking about changing the "Goals" section of the
URL spec, right? That part is largely out of my hands, but it is
certainly something that referencing the WHATWG specification directly
would have solved directly.
As for whether it's a small-group concern, I wish there was less
confrontational rhetoric, so I don't want to show up to make a "group
of angry agitators" larger
Actually I was talking about the small group of people who *object* to
referencing a WHATWG specification.
but I think there should be a spec that
defines how URLs work in a way that's well-defined realistically
implementable in browser engines (and in other software that wishes to
work with content that's written mainly to be consumed by browser
engines). Considering how long the IETF has had to deliver such a spec
but hasn't delivered and how practically infeasible it seems to get
the kind of work that Anne is doing done within the framework of an
IETF WG, I think Anne's spec should be given a chance without casting
doubts from the start about it getting changed over motivations other
that Web compatibility in a later revision.
Well yes, that's pretty much my point.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
