W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Formal definition of HTML5 (was Re: Version information)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:54:59 -0700
Message-Id: <626C597A-EC12-4AC0-873E-34E35E7B22F2@apple.com>
Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "ian@hixie.ch" <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>


On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:

>
> T.V Raman [mailto:raman@google.com] wrote:
>> If we're talking about HTML producing pixel perfect rendering,
>> then I suggest it's time to press the reset button -- that was
>> never HTML's goal, and nor should it ever become its goal.
>
> I agree, but then I don't think it's rational to put a graphics API  
> in the middle of the HTML spec.

Even in its current state, <canvas> probably defines the output more  
precisely than SVG.

>   (And actually, I'm kinda on the fence - other than OS-native  
> controls, I'm not sure if rendering isn't de facto part of the spec  
> anyway.  It's not like we could decide that <div> should have a  
> default margin of 2ems or anything.  :)

Authors expect consistent rendering; indeed, most of the issues that  
have been raised in the versioning / compatibility debate are  
rendering issues. So if our goal is interoperability, it is important  
to specify default rendering. That being said, it may be that some  
details can be left up to the implementation without affecting  
interoperability. For example, it's probably not necessary to  
describe exactly how TrueType glyphs in a font are rasterized, and  
indeed this would do more harm than good.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 17:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC