RE: Microsoft has now joined the HTML Working Group

[co-chair hat off]
Matthew Raymond [mailto:mattraymond@earthlink.net] wrote:
>1) What's your position on <video> and using Ogg Theora as the format
>that all browsers SHOULD support?

See other thread from this morning about Theora.  On <video>, I'm not sure I really see the need over fixing implementations of <object>, and I'd like to understand that better but haven't had the time; and we would need to be equitable with audio, too, I'd imagine.

>2) Would Microsoft consider including <canvas> in "IE Next" if Apple
>agrees to license any associated IP, royalty-free, under W3C patent
>rules?

I explicitly cannot comment on features that will go in to the next version of IE, as a matter of policy.  I think Apple needs to agree that canvas should be pursued in the HTML WG, and then we can have the discussion as a WG.  I'm not against canvas as a matter of policy or anything.

>If so, what are your feelings about a 3D context similar to the
>ones being developed by Opera and Mozilla?

I think 3D is a stretch goal at best.  It may be interesting in the future, but honestly I haven't looked at what goals the Opera/Mozilla effort has.  There have been many 3D attempts in the past; grand goals have typically led to failures.

>3) What is your position on namespacing in HTML?

? We support namespacing in HTML in IE, to some degree.  We have since IE 5.5. It needs some help, it's not quite in the right spirit, but the idea is very powerful.  At the same time, I have to say I also would like the world to move to an XML-based syntax.  I'm not going to force that, of course.

>4) What is your position regarding Web Forms 2.0 and XForms
>Transitional? Should they be merged? If so, in what manner?

I think we need a single coherent plan for forms.  I like the validation mechanisms in Web Forms; I think we need to have a coherent story that scales into richer controls a la XUL (overlap with WAF charter there, of course).  We (this WG) own at least part of that charter, if not all.

>5) What is your position on new global attributes like |src|, |href| and
>|role|?

Hmm.  I'll have to comment in place.  In short, I think src is painfully general - sounds like a great idea, but will cause performance/interop problems in practice.  Href nearly the same.  Role (I presume you mean ARIA Role?) is a good idea.

>6) Will Microsoft's continuing use of the Trident rendering engine
>restrict what it can support with regards to new standards in Internet
>Explorer?

No.  As I've said multiple times in public, Microsoft's problem is not what Trident can support; the problem is supporting the right thing without breaking web compatibility.  IE7 taught us that lesson yet again.

>If so, will the new HTML specification reflect the limitations
>of Trident?

I would hope the WG would not let that happen.  I expect the spec to reflect the realities of deploying HTML in the field, but I would hope we can be creative about overcoming limitations.

>7) Do you feel that the changes to <label> focus passing in WF2 should
>be kept or discarded?

I'm not informed enough to comment at this point.

>8) Do you feel that |onbeforeprint| and |onafterprint| should be
>incorporated into the next HTML standard?

If you mean the events we support in IE (or some cleanup of same/same concept), sure.

>9) How would you deal with the "rich content" problem for attributes
>like |alt| and |title|? (In other words, the fact that you can only have
>text for |alt| and |title| rather than HTML markup.)
>
>10) What are your opinions on how to handle creation and submission of
>rich text in forms?

Having a bunch of smart people on this group will solve that problem.

>11) Does Microsoft intend to support XBL 2.0 in future versions of IE?
>
>12) Will IE support APNG, MNG or a similar format in future versions of
>IE? If so, which format?

See above.

>13) Will the possibility of 3D presentations (perhaps using a CSS4 3D
>Module) be considered when designing new markup for HTML?

I don't think so.  If someone on the group cares enough to consider it and feed that input into the group's work, then it will.

>14) To <acronym> or not to <acronym>? That is a sentence fragment.

We support it in IE7.  :)

>15) How do you feel about <time>? (See Web Apps 1.0.)

It's on my side.  :)  No, seriously, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.  Better semantic representation of data is goodness, in my opinion.

>16) What are your feelings regarding predefined classes?

? Like what?  Microformats?

[co-chair hat back on]

-Chris

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 21:05:34 UTC