W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: details on report of PFWG HTML5 actions & issues status

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:33:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4995A0D1.2010900@intertwingly.net>
To: William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>
CC: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net

William Loughborough wrote:
> I guess it depends on which "October" you're talking about!
> 
> This whole "war" over HTML 5 seems to ignore the fact that although it's 
> easy enough for vendors to implement many of its points, on the whole 
> this thing will take many years to complete and then it will be totally 
> obsolete.
> 
> Love.

I did not mention any "war", and I humbly suggest that you trimmed too 
much in my email; enough so that you may have missed my point entirely.

The issue I raised was not one of new features that may or may not be 
implemented in the near or even far future.  Instead I mentioned that 
the HTML 5 specification, as currently drafted, marks as non-conformant 
a number of features that are present in HTML 4 and are widely and 
interoperably implemented in browsers today

Gaining consensus that such features should not [removed or not be 
added, depending on your perspective] from/to HTML 5 is something that I 
don't see us gaining consensus on any time soon, and remains the largest 
hurdle I see for this working group to get to Last Call.

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net 
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
> 
>     ...I remain deeply skeptical on the notion of this working group
>     reaching Last Call in October.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 16:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:31 GMT