- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:53:22 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Justin James wrote: > > 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. I don't think that's necessarily the case at all. Certainly, when I first read HTML4 I had little clue about these issues. On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Chris Wilson wrote: > > 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). Fair enough. Fixed. > 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." I've rephrased that section to try to address your concerns while keeping the key points in the text. > "Vendor lock-in" is an offensive phrase, and I would prefer that we not > try to make the W3C HTML5 specification a political manifesto. I really don't understand why "vendor lock-in" is offensive; could you elaborate? In any case I've avoided use of that phrase in the new text. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 01:53:59 UTC