7158 2009-07-28 12:41:22 +0000 this is a discribing comment 2010-10-08 08:05:52 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified All All VERIFIED INVALID http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#garbage-collection P3 normal LC 1 contributor ian lmm mike Ms2ger public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 26103 0 contributor 2009-07-28 12:41:22 +0000 Section: http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#garbage-collection Comment: this is a discribing comment Posted from: 80.201.238.44 33158 1 mjs 2010-03-14 14:48:37 +0000 This bug predates the HTML Working Group Decision Policy. If you are satisfied with the resolution of this bug, 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 This bug is now being moved to VERIFIED. Please respond within two weeks. If this bug is not closed, reopened or escalated within two weeks, it may be marked as NoReply and will no longer be considered a pending comment. 33728 2 lmm 2010-03-19 23:27:49 +0000 Just spot-checking the closed issues. It seems like the comment has something to do with the "Garbage Collection" section. Why is Garbage collection a part of the hypertext markup language and associated APIs? How could this be tested? Isn't this just an implementation technique? Do all JavaScript implementations have to use the same style of garbage collector? For example, the term "strong reference" is used. There is no particular way of determining whether a garbage collector exists, uses strong references, uses some other garbage collection technology. This section might belong in an implementor's guide, but it doesn't belong in this document, as it doesn't even apply to any particular conformance class, isn't the result of "reverse engineering". If there's some invariant here that this implementation advice is trying to hint at, the invariant isn't clearly specified. "Pointers shouldn't become invalid"? 34269 3 ian 2010-03-31 20:51:54 +0000 The original bug was not a valid bug. If you have specific issues with garbage collection, please file new bugs.