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: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:42:07 -0500
Message-ID: <h2g643cc0271004291542gd36711a5x8f45570290a81361@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> 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?
>
> I don't think these elements could be considered widely implemented
> no. But it seems like webkit is far enough that it seems like they are
> prepared to commit. And while I can't speak for other people working
> with mozilla, the general feeling I have is that we are commited to
> implementing these features in Firefox. This of course includes
> implementing the accessibility needs for them.
>
> I don't know about Opera or Microsoft. But if they really didn't want
> to implement them I would have expected them to speak up in support
> for removing them from the spec. I know I have in the past when there
> has been aspects of the spec that I didn't want to implement.
>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0140.html
>
> / Jonas
>

The point I tried to make with these change proposals is that the
browser implementors aren't the only community impacted by these new
elements. Does the W3C represent only browser companies? Or does it
represent the web community at large?

I've looked, hard, out on the web, and no one is excited by the
element's I've targeted. Not even details, which only generates
interest from a relatively small group of people, when taken in
perspective.

Frankly, I don't  see a lot of excitement from the browser companies,
either. Compared to the speed with which the companies implemented the
video element, none have implemented details, or progress, or aside,
or many of the other new elements. The progress element's been around
for about 5 years, and it's still not implemented.

In the meantime, JavaScript frameworks have changed how we build
applications. They provide _so much_ when these built-ins provide _so
little_.

What HTML5 is going to end up with, is a lot of elements that confuse
people (article/section, figure/aside/details), and a lot of elements
no one is going to use (details, progress, meter, aside,...) -- and an
attribute that's identical to one in ARIA (aria-hidden), except the
ARIA attribute is aware that it's redundant with the CSS display
property, while the HTML5 attribute is totally clueless.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 22:51:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT