Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I'm CCing wikitech-l here for broader input, since I do think Wikipedia would be interested in adopting this but I can't really speak for Wikipedia myself. The history of this discussion can be found in the archives:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/021133.html
Brandon Sterne's messages are not in that archive. When you reply to them and CC to the list, you break threading, so it's not really obvious what proposal you're both talking about. But I assume it's the idea of allowing CSP to temporarily stop enforcing and complain only, to simplify deployment.
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/021179.html
I think both whatwg and wikitech-l are configured to bounce messages by unregistered users. For wikitech-l members who want to comment, the registration link for whatwg is:
I was subscribed, but I was trolled there until I gave up and unsubscribed, at which point they quietly implemented my proposal.
I don't know why you think more input is needed, it's a reasonable proposal. Just flame everyone until you get your way.
-- Tim Starling
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Tim Starlingtstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brandon Sterne's messages are not in that archive.
That's confusing. I'm not sure why. You're correct about what point I'm referring to.
I was subscribed, but I was trolled there until I gave up and unsubscribed, at which point they quietly implemented my proposal.
Ian is the only one who really gets to decide what goes in the spec, unless implementers force his hand by flat-out refusing to implement something. He replies to every substantive point made on the list eventually, but he can take a couple of months. In your case it looks like he agreed with you, when he finally got around to it. There's not really a "they", and I wouldn't call it "quiet" so much as "delayed".
You can mostly ignore anyone on the whatwg list who isn't Ian or an implementer, really, if you're only trying to get something put in the spec. You only have to care what they say if you think it will convince anyone important. Or if you think it might convince you. :)
I don't know why you think more input is needed, it's a reasonable proposal. Just flame everyone until you get your way.
Well, in this case we're not even talking about something that would go into HTML 5, necessarily, it's being developed by only Mozilla right now. If more important Wikimedia people than I state agreement with me about the importance of the feature to easy CSP deployment, I think that will be more useful than flaming anyone. Or if they disagree, they should say so so I don't mislead the Mozilla people into thinking the feature needs to be added to the spec.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Aryeh GregorSimetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in this case we're not even talking about something that would go into HTML 5, necessarily, it's being developed by only Mozilla right now. If more important Wikimedia people than I state agreement with me about the importance of the feature to easy CSP deployment, I think that will be more useful than flaming anyone. Or if they disagree, they should say so so I don't mislead the Mozilla people into thinking the feature needs to be added to the spec.
[snip]
This point is worth saying twice.
If some minor tweak (like a monitor but not enforce mode) is necessary and sufficient for the Mediawiki core devs to commit to using the feature (and for Wikimedia to roll it on Wikipedia) then that should carry significant weight for both the implemetors and whatwg as a whole.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org