On 29/11/2007, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Whether or not you think it's a waste of time,
No, I was asking if you were declaring it was one.
there's no excuse for
broadcasting every parser bug you find to three mailing lists. There's no
shortage of parser bugs, and no need to act surprised when you find one.
It's hardly every bug, and in this case it was something which was
widely touted as an important behaviour which turned out not to be as
advertised; there's then a question as to whether or not it is in fact
a bug. Since any replacement parser would have to implement useful
quirks of the present parser, then bug-for-bug compatibilty is
actually important. What course of action would you suggest for such
cases? (Speaking as one of those moving the parser behaviour
goalposts.)
- d.