Peter Kasting wrote:
As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note the distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were supposed to test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 years), much of HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have agreement-on-principle from various vendors) and this issue, where vendors have publicly refused to implement particular cases. Particular specs in the first two cases represent vendor consensus, and when vendors discover problems during implementation the specs are changed. This is not a case where vendor consensus is currently possible (despite the apparently naive beliefs on the part of some who think the vendors are merely ignorant and need education on the benefits of codec x or y), and "just put it in the spec to apply pressure" is not a reasonable response.
I don't know that anyone has suggested putting it in the spec *only* to apply pressure to vendors. Certainly that is an added "bonus" (I'll put that in quotes because not everyone will consider that a positive thing), and certainly doing so will achieve the goal of applying pressure. But I agree that putting it in the spec to *only* apply pressure to vendors is not reasonable, but considering it as an additional reason to put it in the spec, is quite reasonable.
-- Jeff McAdams je...@iglou.com
