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

[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."

Reply via email to