W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on 142 poster-alt

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:56:07 +0200
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vs5cbto0sr6mfa@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:41:19 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> There is also an objection to naming this attribute "first frame", but
>> that objection is a "necessary consequence" of the objection that this
>> is already implemented by browsers and used by web pages.
>
> What does "necessary consequence" mean here? Are any changes that
> require changes to deployed browsers going to automatically going to
> receive such an objection? While I agree it's good to be conservative
> with making changes to UAs which might break existing content, if the
> chairs are automatically adding such objections to the mix, they might
> want to confer with UAs first to see if they share the concern.
>
> All UAs have experience with deprecating features. Some are harder to
> deprecate than others.

The "necessary consequence" was in reference to my objections in the poll:

I strongly object to removing the poster attribute, as it is already  
implemented by browsers and used by web pages. Adding a short text  
alternative for the placeholder/poster image (which I object to) does not  
require changing this part of the syntax.

As a necessary consequence, I also object to renaming the concept from  
"poster frame" to "first frame", even though I acknowledge that "poster  
frame" is by no means a perfect name for the feature.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 07:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT