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

Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:45:27 -0700
Message-Id: <02E2FBE0-E3EA-4BCA-A1C2-33CC1B495961@apple.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: tina@greytower.net

On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Tina Holmboe wrote:

>
>   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 would like the HTML standard to document the reality of the Web,  
not some idealized imaginary version of the Web.  What good is a  
standard that - if implemented by itself - results only in a toy  
browser that can't render the real Web?  How is that standard helpful  
to anyone?

>   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.
>

What browser vendors want is usually what Web site authors are  
telling us that 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.
>

If enough content authors want a feature, then clearly it would be of  
interest to browser vendors as well.  I'm not sure why you are  
singling out browser vendors as a unique audience.  We have no  
interest in adding features that content authors wouldn't use.  We'd  
just be bloating our products for no reason if we did that.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 21:46:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT