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

Re: follow up on the discussion in HTML5 about metadata access

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:01:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4DCA257F.8050206@w3.org>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>


And the notion of "valuable" changes over time  ....
For example SVG  5 years ago, required extra plugin to display in the 
Web browsers, in our days it displays natively in most browsers.

Who knows, in the future this may happen to SMIL (part our SMIL is 
already into browsers) and to Epub ...


 > They're part of the Web, but they are certainly not as valuable as the
 > most deployed features of HTML.

Le 11/05/2011 01:32, Philippe Le Hegaret a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Only in the way that PDF, smil, flash, or any other non-HTML content can be called "web content".
>
> I don't think that the folks involved in svg, css, or js would be happy
> to read this. :)
>
> Anything that can be put on an HTTP server is contributing to the
> content of the Web. For sure, some data formats have more value than
> others, because they have different properties (open, hypertext links,
> widely used, supported in major Web browser, etc.), but there's still on
> the Web and are still Web content. For example, the content provided by
> sites like youtube is web content, whether you like their use of flash
> or not. Web applications are also part of the Web as well, despite the
> fact that most of them don't provide links to reference their state, and
> therefore are unfriendly to HTTP cache servers or SEO engines.
>
>>   IMO they are not a native part of the web, but an adjunct and require extra plugins to work in the Web browser.
>
> They're part of the Web, but they are certainly not as valuable as the
> most deployed features of HTML. The HTML track element has currently
> less value than XSLT on the Web, just because it's not as well deployed,
> but still it's part of the Web and its value will increase in the
> rapidly upcoming years. SMIL never found its way into major Web browsers
> nor did it manage to deploy a significant set of clients, thus its value
> is more limited than HTML. Content that is served by a Web server and is
> only usable in one specific iphone app has almost no value on the Web,
> but the value of this web content is still not 0.
>
> For sure, the most valuable Web content is content that is specified by
> a royalty-free widely-used interoperable deployed and well implemented
> HTTP-friendly IRI-friendly open standard specification.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 07:31:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC