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

RE: Section 1.4.4 proposed text

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:07:47 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D12127075745E648BBC075EF46983E17274046ACF6@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, Ian Hickson wrote:
>How are Flash and Silverlight not UI languages?

I would say both Flash and Silverlight can be USED as UI languages, as can HTML; however, that's not all they are.  Flash is an animation language, for example; Silverlight is an application language (deeper than just UI).

>> This specification is independent of various vendor markup languages
>> such as XUL, Flash, Silverlight and others. As an openly developed
>> language, HTML5 provides non-proprietary solutions to many of the same
>> problems, but is not guaranteed to be a replacement for any or all of
>> the features of these languages.
>
>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.

As Justin James just responded, I think anyone reading this section of the HTML5 spec probably doesn't need to be lectured on the benefit of vendor neutrality, but I'm happy to add a sentence that describes that - e.g., tacking on a sentence at the end that says "HTML5 is intended to be a vendor-neutral language, implemented by a large number of vendors across a broad range of scenarios."

"Vendor lock-in" is an offensive phrase, and I would prefer that we not try to make the W3C HTML5 specification a political manifesto.

-Chris
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 01:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:24 GMT