- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:30:07 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 30 Apr, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>> The W3C should define HTML, and browser manufacturers should be
>> willing to accept that definition (or to reject it, at their own
>> risk: this is a free world),
>
> Wouldn't it be better to take input from browser manufacturers into
> account up front, and make HTML5 something that they are willing,
> able and eager to implement in a conforming way? Keep in mind that
Netscape introduced the FONT element. Microsoft, Opera, and Apple all
were willing, able, if not eager, to implement it.
Does that mean we should add FONT to the standard? The WHAT WG seem to
think so - I disagree; as does most everyone I know who work with the
web.
I'm afraid that if we /do/ make HTML 5 what the browser vendors are
willing, able, and eager to implement then we'll not get anything
/other/ than what they want.
That's not enough. We /also/ need things in the specs that browser
vendors might not want, or to do things in ways /they/ don't want; but
users might still need, require, wish ... this is a two-way street.
> though it may be satisfying to show those browser vendors who's boss,
> you may find it more productive to work with us constructively.
There really is no need to make snide remarks. None here or elsewhere
is trying to "show those browser vendors who's boss" - I, for one, am
simply not in agreement with the path to take.
I hope, sincerely, that you are not suggesting disagreement is somehow
undesired.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 21:30:13 UTC