On 2012-11-19 19:27, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2012-11-17 19:17, Adam Barth wrote:
...
I would prefer if the spec described what implementations actually do
rather than your opinion about what they should do. To answer your
specific questions:
...
That works well if something is widely supported already. It works less well
if you have one initial and one incomplete implementation only.
Which implementation is initial and which is incomplete? AFAIK, both
IE and Chromium consider their implementation of this feature done.
"initial" -> the one done first, and by the vendor that invented the
functionality
"incomplete" -> the one that copies one part and not the other part of
he behavior of the initial implementation
...
1) Don't bother dropping the "X-". Everyone who implements this
feature uses the X- and dropping it is just going to cause unnecessary
interoperability problems.
There's no *need* to drop it, but if research on this topic leads to the
conclusion that the functionality is needed, but the current X- prototype
isn't sufficient anyway it might be worth considering.
Currently, I don't see a use case for dropping the X- prefix. Perhaps
there's one I don't understand?
A use case for *renaming* (which might be more than dropping the prefix)
actually would be saving bytes on the wire. Another one would be to make
it possible to make incompatible changes to the field value syntax, when
needed.
Best regards, Julian
