He's dead, Jim:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107522
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I think it's fine to shoot it in the head now. We do still want to come back
> to it eventually, but it's now apparent that we won't in the next 1.5 months.
>
> - Maciej
> Your examples are not valid according to XML 1.0.
I know - that was kind of the point of mentioning it - an FYI.
Will raise for discussion on the responsible W3C mailing lists when I figure
out where they are.
Cheers,
Steve.
On 18/01/2013 15:26, Dirk Schulze wrote:
On Jan 18, 2013, at 6:19
On Jan 18, 2013, at 6:19 AM, Steve Williams
wrote:
> No idea what this is about as I haven't studied your tree yet but here's
> a couple of XML enhancements I'd like to see accepted by the mainstream
> (including the webkit parser)
>
> 1. default element close.
>
> syntax:
>
No idea what this is about as I haven't studied your tree yet but here's
a couple of XML enhancements I'd like to see accepted by the mainstream
(including the webkit parser)
1. default element close.
syntax:
[stuff]
currently you have to do :
I think it's fine to shoot it in the head now. We do still want to come back to
it eventually, but it's now apparent that we won't in the next 1.5 months.
- Maciej
On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Maciej has asked that we keep it around until the end of February:
>
> https:/
Maciej has asked that we keep it around until the end of February:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100710
Adam
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It has been 11 months since Eric initially raised the concern. Can we go
> ahead and remove the parser now?
>
>
Hi,
It has been 11 months since Eric initially raised the concern. Can we go
ahead and remove the parser now?
- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
On Aug 27, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> My position is simple: the code is broken and unused. As a general
> rule, we shouldn't keep broken, unused code in the tree for extended
> periods of time. Therefore, we should remove it.
I agree with Adam. We should aggressively cull dead code
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug
On Aug 27, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>
>> Ha! So the reason for removing the code is simplifying the HTML5 parser,
>> just to undo the simplification once the original writer has the time to
>> come back to it. Seems like well
On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> Checking back
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 27,
On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> Checking back
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
Checking back in:
Curious if this effort is still underway.
On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
>>> Checking back in:
>>>
>>> Curious if this effort is still underway. Adam and I would like to
>>> delete the New XML Parser if it's
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
>> Checking back in:
>>
>> Curious if this effort is still underway. Adam and I would like to
>> delete the New XML Parser if it's not needed in order to simplify the
>> HTML 5 Parser agai
On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> Checking back in:
>
> Curious if this effort is still underway. Adam and I would like to
> delete the New XML Parser if it's not needed in order to simplify the
> HTML 5 Parser again. :)
We do tentatively plan to get back to it (the original i
Checking back in:
Curious if this effort is still underway. Adam and I would like to
delete the New XML Parser if it's not needed in order to simplify the
HTML 5 Parser again. :)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
>
>>
On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> It seems the "New XML Parser" hasn't been touched in about 8 months:
>
> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/xml/parser
>
> Are there any plans to continue work on such, or can it be removed?
> The refactoring which was done to s
It seems the "New XML Parser" hasn't been touched in about 8 months:
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/xml/parser
Are there any plans to continue work on such, or can it be removed?
The refactoring which was done to support it seems to mostly just
confuse the HTML 5 Parser code.
20 matches
Mail list logo
