On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I said in the very first e-mail on this subject, that's what I'd like > to do. However, that's a significantly higher cost (years vs weeks) than > releasing an errata, and it was my impression that the Mozilla community > would like a quick turnaround on this.
It looks to me like you're retroactively specifying something in your test. I asked a simple question to determine whether that was the case, since I would like to know the exact nature of the bugs Google is (rather pompously) flaming us for.[1] If there is disagreement about a change to normative behavior, it seems like the right thing to do would be to discuss it, not pick one interpretation and try to jam it through as errata. I don't see how one can claim the spec can be interpreted both ways, but also that the intent is clear. Is one of the possible interpretations a real stretch? [1] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2008/05/07/when-the-fall-is-all-thats-left -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
