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

Re: title (editorial) to scope (technical)

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:24:36 +0100
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7428D26D-BFD3-415F-8259-BE83360DDD87@googlemail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On 28 May 2009, at 20:26, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Now, I remember distinctly that at the TPAC, someone in the room
> asserted that (and I think I'm quoting literally), "all that
> mattered" were the "four major browsers", with the implication
> that other HTML applications, and other categories of HTML
> applications, didn't count. I didn't hear anyone else objecting
> to this assertion.  And the perspective makes a good deal of
> sense, actually. If the "four major browsers" can establish
> uniform behavior, it establishes a baseline of  interoperability
> on top of which additional new features can be added. Without
> interoperability at the baseline of browsers, content will
> be stuck in a "best viewed by" world.

 From memory this was with regards to existing behaviour (e.g., when  
defining parsers). It more comes down to the majority of HTML  
processors have far more relevance to what is needed for compat. than  
other implementations (and the fact that the four biggest are all  
browsers is coincidental). Equally, it could be (and has been) argued  
that if the major processors don't implement a feature it shouldn't  
stay in the spec., as for the vast majority of users the feature may  
as well not be in the spec. (and again, it is incidental to the  
argument that the biggest processors are all browsers).


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 20:25:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT