This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Remove the newly added typemustmatch as per: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0023.html This was not added in response to a bug or an issue. Neither was this discussed in the group. I believe that LC procedures prevent ad-hoc, impulsive alteration of the HTML5 document.
More of the "in-depth" and "thoughtful" discussion that led to this change. http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110614#l-223
(In reply to comment #0) > This was not added in response to a bug or an issue. Neither was this discussed > in the group. Yes, it was. The relevant emails are: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-March/030823.htm http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-March/030824.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-June/032023.html
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 was minimal discussion even within the WHATWG... I mean, what is there to discuss? The security issue is pretty well-understood and the solution bz proposed is self-evidently the best solution as far as I can tell. If you want this removed then please use the change revert process, that seems to be the way that things like this are being done these days.
Well, the spec is in Last Call. Please do not change the language without prior discussion + agreement in the Working Group.
Then this one needs to be an issue. Co-chairs, you need to lock down the spec. The editor should go through the same procedures everyone else goes through to make such non-editorial changes to the specification during LC.
I'm told the proper procedure is to ask for a revert. Please revert this change.
From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "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" Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to create the tracker issue themselves?
(In reply to comment #7) > From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "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" > > Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to > create the tracker issue themselves? Title: Remove typemustmatch Text: This attribute was added to HTML5 with very little discussion--none in the W3C. And as noted by editor: "Because using this attribute without testing will cause sites to break when it is implemented, I both encourage user agent vendors to implement it quickly, and urge everyone else to not speak of it loudly until browsers have shipped with support for this attribute."
Oh, forgot to mention for the issue: This attribute violates HTML WG design principles in that it breaks the web.
http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=typemustmatch%20lang:html&type=cs It doesn't break the Web. (If the handling of <object> would be made stricter without a new attribute, that would be breaking the Web.)
(In reply to comment #10) > http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=typemustmatch%20lang:html&type=cs > > It doesn't break the Web. (If the handling of <object> would be made stricter > without a new attribute, that would be breaking the Web.) Actually, it does break the web, if we talk about web of the future as well as web of the past. This attribute change makes an assumption that the only way to safely use this attribute is if all browsers have implemented it. We don't have concurrence from all browsers to implement this. According to the editor, this attribute will break if people use it without being able to test, first. I am not making this assertion, the editor is. If the people proposing the addition of this attribute bring it up in the HTML WG, and all implementors of all browsers agree with its purpose, and all agree that they will, eventually implement it, then it makes sense to consider adding this attribute. But there's been no confirmation from any browser implementor about implementing this attribute, much less all of them. And, in the editor's own words, without this across the board agreement, the use of this attribute will not only not work, but could very well break pages of any person using the attribute.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "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" > > > > Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to > > create the tracker issue themselves? > > Title: Remove typemustmatch > > Text: This attribute was added to HTML5 with very little discussion--none in > the W3C. And as noted by editor: > > "Because using this attribute without testing will cause sites to break > when it is implemented, I both encourage user agent vendors to implement > it quickly, and urge everyone else to not speak of it loudly until > browsers have shipped with support for this attribute." I've removed extraneous commentary: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/168
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "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" > > > > > > Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to > > > create the tracker issue themselves? > > > > Title: Remove typemustmatch > > > > Text: This attribute was added to HTML5 with very little discussion--none in > > the W3C. And as noted by editor: > > > > "Because using this attribute without testing will cause sites to break > > when it is implemented, I both encourage user agent vendors to implement > > it quickly, and urge everyone else to not speak of it loudly until > > browsers have shipped with support for this attribute." > > I've removed extraneous commentary: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/168 I don't believe it was appropriate of you to remove "extraneous" commentary. However, it isn't worth fighting the point.
mass-move component to LC1