W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you support these change proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:25:31 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <79121A49-FA3E-4272-9B7F-34CA9A737EA7@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Jonas,
>> I'll also note that I haven't yet heard anyone representing a browser
>> developer arguing against these elements. I would further assume that
>> no browser developer is going to argue for putting features in the
>> spec that they don't intend to implement.
> Ian once explained his nine step procedure [1] for adding new features
> to the spec.
> He concluded by saying that the default state for a feature request is
> for it to be rejected and the default state for a section of the spec
> was for it to be eventually dropped unless the feature is widely
> implemented and so important that browser vendors "are actually ready
> to commit money and risk interop issues over it".
> Are these elements widely implemented?
> Are they so important that browser vendors are actually ready to
> commit money and risk interop issues over them?

(chair hat off)

Some of these elements are already partially implemented in WebKit,  
and the WebKit project is overall pretty enthusiastic about  
implementing the rest. I can't necessarily speak for vendors using  
WebKit in their products, but WebKit-based browsers generally track  
what happens in the open source project.

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 20:26:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC