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

RE: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:16:54 +0100
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602EDCBA4FD@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi,

Yes, I was not exclusively referring to Firefox when asking my question.
And, as Paul pointed out, any browser manufacturer who is implementing
anything at this stage is running the risk of having to change that
implementation.

However as I already read in this thread, not surprizingly, it might be
difficult to make changes to an already implemented feature if it means
breaking web sites.
This is precicely what I am concerned about...pressure being built up by
facts being created ahead of time.

There is no question that we need implementations to show that the spec
works, but there is a time and place for this within W3C process.
Proto-implementations increase the danger of the group being pressured
into decisions that are not in the best interest of a new HTML
specification.

Therefore I would like to see a bit more restraint or forethought by
browser manufacturers in implementing features.
Equally I would like to see a bit more awareness by the group as to what
is happening and find ways to help make potential proto-implementations
as stable as possible.

-- Kai




 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:36 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: HTMLWG WG
> Subject: RE: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for 
> justification
> 
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Paul Cotton wrote:
> >
> > We should all remember that the following text is in the Status 
> > section of each HTML5 WD:
> > 
> > ====
> > 
> > Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. 
> > Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are 
> likely to 
> > find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible 
> > ways. Vendors interested in implementing this specification 
> before it 
> > eventually reaches the Candidate Recommendation stage 
> should join the 
> > aforementioned mailing lists and take part in the discussions.
> > 
> > The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft 
> > does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working 
> > group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any 
> > section of the specification, one can usually find many 
> members of the 
> > working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the 
> > current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea that 
> > the working group should even spend time discussing the 
> concept of that section.
> > 
> > ====
> 
> So Microsoft would not object to us changing the behaviour of 
> onhashchange="" or the semantics of postMessage() to be 
> incompatible with what was implemented in IE8?
> 
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                
> )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   
> _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   
> `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 08:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC