3 ms·

It's not hard. Start with the WHATWG's spec, then incorporate the other specs it references using a reasonable heuristic to determine if a given item should be

by cxr 4y ago

It's not hard. Start with the WHATWG's spec, then incorporate the other specs it references using a reasonable heuristic to determine if a given item should be included or not. If you don't think the estimate from Reckless, Infinite Scope is wildly off, then you either didn't read the methodology and do a spot-check of the dataset, or you really don't understand the scope of what gets published by W3C and how little much of it has to do with Web browsers or how many revisions of them there are.

illiarian 4y ago
It may not be possible to come up with a "reasonable heuristic": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35524018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35524018
- cxr 4y ago
  It is possible, and that sentence is verging on nonsense. A heuristic is not by definition perfect or optimal.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > It is possible, and that sentence is verging on nonsense. Define "reasonable" then, when talking about the web.
    - cxr 4y ago
      The only bar that the heuristic has to pass here is "delivers a result that doesn't suck as bad as the analysis in Reckless, Infinite Scope". The analysis in that article is so bad, however, that your heuristic can literally be, "if you encounter an item that was also in Drew DeVault's input set, then assign an arbitrary probability 0.9 (or whatever) of whether the item should be counted", and it would still give you a more realistic result than what the article says (and that people are actually relying on in their arguments—and that you are defending) here. Aside from that, given how many logical errors and weird counterconclusions[1] you've managed to stuff into this discussion, though (and to have been able to do so economically[2]), I'm going to go ahead and say this is my last response to you that I spend more than 10 seconds writing out. 1. e.g. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521704#35524952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521704#35524952> 2. wrt number of words, fittingly

by cxr 4y ago

illiarian 4y ago

It may not be possible to come up with a "reasonable heuristic": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35524018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35524018

cxr 4y ago
It is possible, and that sentence is verging on nonsense. A heuristic is not by definition perfect or optimal.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > It is possible, and that sentence is verging on nonsense. Define "reasonable" then, when talking about the web.
  - cxr 4y ago
    The only bar that the heuristic has to pass here is "delivers a result that doesn't suck as bad as the analysis in Reckless, Infinite Scope". The analysis in that article is so bad, however, that your heuristic can literally be, "if you encounter an item that was also in Drew DeVault's input set, then assign an arbitrary probability 0.9 (or whatever) of whether the item should be counted", and it would still give you a more realistic result than what the article says (and that people are actually relying on in their arguments—and that you are defending) here. Aside from that, given how many logical errors and weird counterconclusions[1] you've managed to stuff into this discussion, though (and to have been able to do so economically[2]), I'm going to go ahead and say this is my last response to you that I spend more than 10 seconds writing out. 1. e.g. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521704#35524952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521704#35524952> 2. wrt number of words, fittingly