On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:43:15 +0200, Adrian Bateman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:24 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the
> > spec as currently written and have explicitly said that they have no
> > plans to do so.
> If browsers can agree on what to implement, update the spec to reflect
> that. If they can't and we don't think they ever will, update the
> spec to say behavior is undefined. Either way, it's no less worthy of
> REC-track specification than other preexisting features that are
> flawed but in practice not removable from the platform.
...
I agree - the current API isn't ideal but it is what it is and there is
reasonable interoperability at this point. Microsoft would prefer not to
see the spec move to WG Note status and instead see the spec modified to
reflect the current implementations: removing the SCA, removing the
mutex,
and adding a warning about the race conditions would get us most of the
way. There are certainly uses of this feature where the race is unlikely
to cause a problem.
Yep, Opera agrees. So, do you have someone available to edit the spec thus
and help it through the Rec track?
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
