On 22/09/2014 15:04 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Robin Berjon <ro...@w3.org> wrote:
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
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?
Yes.
Right. So I can't speak for the people who are working on that, but I
can vouch that they are open to feedback and have no foul intention
whatsoever. The formulation of the note may come across as unfortunate,
but I know that their intent was always to operate through pull requests
made against the upstream spec.
Overall, Anne's URL spec puts us all in a much better situation than we
were when we only had the RFCs. However, there are (likely mostly
non-Web) implementations and domains that are more strictly close the
RFCs. If we could keep those worlds separate, we'd all be fine, but of
course these things have a tendency to leak. As a result, some form of
unified URL spec that can work across the board makes sense to me
(though it's not on my personal high priority list). If there are people
interested in the work and it can be done through non-disruptive PRs I'm
very much fine with it.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
