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

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

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <tkrat.1f21ab6037580f0b@greytower.net>

On 30 Apr, David Hyatt wrote:

> instead."  You seem to be trying to paint a picture of browser  
> vendors as selfish.  We implement what our customers demand, whether  

  You misunderstand my comments.



> this though is that when we do innovate, we make sure to feed back  
> our innovation to a standards body or group to see if there is  
> interest in that feature becoming part of a specification.  This has  

  And if there IS no (other) interest in including the feature in the
  specification, may I then assume that the following plays out:



> and the HTML WG decrees that it is not useful, that doesn't mean that  
> we should throw the idea away and never implement it.  Of course we  
> browser vendors might get together and implement the feature anyway.

  So, again: regardless of what the specification actually end up with,
  the vendors will do /exactly/ as they see fit?

  You must excuse me, but I fail to see how this will improve the
  situation - nor, frankly, do I see how /I/ am painting a picture of
  selfish browser authors.
  



> It might be yes.  As we've seen with CSS there were numerous features  
> that were ultimately ignored by vendors in CSS2.0, and so CSS2.1  
> wisely dropped them from the specification.  I would suggest that if  

  Indeed. Such as the dynamic fonts that authors are screaming for,
  which got added to CSS 2, removed from CSS 2.1 'cause the browsers
  didn't implement it, and which have been re-introduced in CSS 3
  because *authors still want dynamic fonts*.

  Authors wants it. Browser vendors didn't want to implement it. The
  specification went with the authors, then the vendors, now with the
  authors again.

  Wouldn't it be a better idea if /all/ concerned agreed on a
  specification - browser vendors included - and then we /all/ used it
  the same way?

-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 23:25:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC