On 31 Jul 2019, at 16:40, Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2019 22:00:30 CEST Marvin W wrote: >>> Backward compatibility >> >> There clearly have been opposing opinions on that matter. I believe they >> are partly driven by different understanding on how Reactions might be >> used in the wild, but I doubt there will be any way to reach consensus >> on a rule that mandates a specific body or its absence. That said, I >> support Florians suggestion to gather some implementation experience >> first and decide on a more specific business rule afterwards. > > Right, I am very on board with using Experimental for this. I have a very > strong opinion on the "how" though. > > Please, let us, right from the start, add a legacy body in all > implementations. This will let us gauge how much it really affects legacy > implementations *much* better than not doing so. Remember, without the legacy > body legacy implementations will not see anything; they might not notice > they’re missing anything. On the other hand, if the legacy body is in fact > harmful, we will actually get that feedback and can work on how to improve > it, > possibly by removing it altogether.
As an extension of the long debate in Council a moment ago, I’m very much opposed to adding a body fallback to these - I think it’s actively harmful for multiple reasons (mentioned there). /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
