W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

RE: Section 1.4.4 proposed text

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:53:07 -0500
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Chris Wilson'" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f701c94461$06c04470$1440cd50$@com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:36 PM
> To: Chris Wilson
> Cc: HTML WG
> Subject: Re: Section 1.4.4 proposed text
> 
> This doesn't mention the risk of vendor lock-in and the benefit of
> vendor
> neutrality, which are two of the most important points made in the
> current
> paragraph, IMHO.

My 2 cents: I think that anyone reading this section of the HTML 5 spec
(indeed, anyone reading any portion of it) is familiar with the various
risks of such technologies. There is no need for the HTML specification to
take what could be construed as a "political tone" regarding this topic.

J.Ja
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:54:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC