In case it wasn't clear, I love the "we did it, therefore it's the spec" attitude from Chrome's developer evangelists. Good chutzpah.
-
-
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz If our devrel is lying about it being part of the spec, that's bad. However, we talked about this on the list before.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tabatkins
@tabatkins There was discussion on the list. It went nowhere. There were no WG decisions I see to make a change either.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz Hm, okay. In that case, I need to bring it up in the next telcon. I'd thought we'd okayed the change.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tabatkins
@tabatkins I also checked with@davidbaron and he was not aware of such a change having been made, fwiw.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz I think we all agree that we shouldn't imply that something is in a specification if it isn't. Hopefully Tim will correct his post.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@adambarth I think you and I agree. Given past experience I'm not convinced that the folks who usually post on html5rocks agree.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.