This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
This section currently does not cite RFC 2397 on how to create the URI; it probably should. If the current algorithm does stay though, it probably cite the latest and greatest on BASE64, which would be RFC 4648.
Please file just one issue per bug. I'm tired of asking you to do this. EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Invalid use of bug system.
This is a single issue.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: There's no reason to reference RFC2397 here. It wouldn't add anything useful.
-> If the current algorithm does stay though, it probably cite the latest and greatest on BASE64, which would be RFC 4648.
You said this bug had just one issue. Now you're reopening it for another issue. This is not valid use of the bug system. Look, ordinarily I would just fix the bug and move on, but you KEEP DOING THIS. Asking you politely to file one issue per bug is clearly not working. So I'm not fixing this issue as part of this bug. If you want it fixed, file a new bug, as you should have in the first place.
This bug notes a problem and proposed to potential resolutions. Deal with it, please.
A simple fix would be to replace > 4. A base-64 encoded representation of data. [RFC2045] by > 4. A base-64 encoded representation of data. (See "Base 64 Encoding", Section 4 of [RFC4648]) I'm at a loss why this can't be fixed without escalation.
It doesn't need escalation, it just requires one bug per issue. Use the bug system correctly and everything will be fine. I'm just refusing to put up with your repeated misuse of the bug system because you KEEP DOING IT, so asking politely simply isn't working. TrackerRequest on this bug is completely inappropriate, since you're not even escalating the original bug, but a separate bug that hasn't even been filed yet.
(In reply to comment #8) > It doesn't need escalation, it just requires one bug per issue. Use the bug > system correctly and everything will be fine. I'm just refusing to put up with > your repeated misuse of the bug system because you KEEP DOING IT, so asking > politely simply isn't working. > > TrackerRequest on this bug is completely inappropriate, since you're not even > escalating the original bug, but a separate bug that hasn't even been filed > yet. The bug raises one issue, and offers to potential resolutions. Anyway, I'll open an issue then.
(to Ian Hickson: please do not silently remove TrackerRequest keywords)
Comment 8 was added while the keyword was removed.
(In reply to comment #11) > Comment 8 was added while the keyword was removed. Indeed, I didn't realize the keyword was remove earlier the day before. So, rephrasing: please do not remove "TrackerRequest" keywords without consulting with the WG.
My apologies, removing the keyword was accidental.
I have spoken to both Julian and Ian about this bug. Julian says that he feels he raised a single issue, with two alternative possible resolutions. Ian argues that this bug covers two separate issues. In the intererest of bypassing this argument and saving the WG time that would be consumed in processing this as a tracker issue, I have filed bug 10634 myself with the remaining issue, which is to update the base64 reference. Since this covers Julian's remaining concern, I am removing TrackerIssue for now. The other bug, once resolved, could be escalated in its own right if necessary.