-
-
Replying to @PointedEars2
@PointedEars2@annevk@mathias Making it easier for new implementors to become competitive is keeping the web in dark ages? O_o1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PointedEars2
@PointedEars2@m_gol@annevk@mathias "obsolete, replaced" doesn't mean "not used by 90% of websites", sadly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz@m_gol@annevk@mathias It may justify support for a while. It does _not_ justify a *new* *requirement* for support by a “standard”.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PointedEars2
@bz_moz@m_gol@annevk@mathias You never draw the line anywhere, there'll be no progress. Don't tell me you're not rm'ing. Moz rm's 2 well…4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PointedEars2
@PointedEars2@m_gol@annevk@mathias A feature "required" by a standard but that's not needed for compat can just not be implemented.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz@m_gol@annevk@mathias The perversion of “standard” that we will end up with “Living Standards”. It's required, but wait, it's not.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PointedEars2
@PointedEars2@m_gol@annevk@mathias I mean, a UA that wants to do that would also raise a spec issue to make the feature not required.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz@m_gol@annevk@mathias That is the problem. Features already *known* to be obsolete should not be required by a new specification.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@PointedEars2 @m_gol @annevk @mathias You're confusing "obsolete" and "not needed for compatibility".
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.