W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Proposed adaptive image element

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:57:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5011931A.5010402@nag.co.uk>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 26/07/2012 19:47, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> David Carlisle, Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:01:27 +0100:

> It is relevant to your claim that HTML5 is focused only on "people".
> Obviously it is isn't: HTML5 is large enough even if the canonical
> living standard is larger. And both groups tries to cater for
> "people", mechanically and otherwise.

I think you must have misunderstood that comment. (As I don't understand
this reply at all:-) I didn't make any "claims". The question to which I
was replying explicitly asked for pros and cons of a certain action. Any
reply to that is necessarily a personal view and I gave some personal
views. It is my view (which I tried to express in my reply, but to which
you appear to object for some reason) that numbered specifications are
more useful for (human or mechanical) generators of documents, as it
gives a stable target to generate. They are less useful for systems
which consume documents (notably browsers) as they want to consume all
versions with a single code path.

>>> I also don't think there is consensus that creativity should
>>> only happen within the WHATwg space. So while individuals within
>>> each group might agree with you, I don't think that whether the
>>> WHATWG or the HTMLwg subscribe to the model you present.
>> The W3C announcement eg as phrased at
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/07/html5_and_htmlnext.html
>> is basically in line with what I said. This HTML WG should work
>> towards HTML5 and the WHAT CG  should work on HTML.next.
> That post does not say what the WHATwg should work on. It also does
> not say that W3 is not going to work on HTML.next.
>> All I was saying if that we are planning to add new features to
>> HTML beyond what is currently specified in HTML5 then common sense
>> dictates that they be compatible with HTML.next.
> Whether 'HTML.next' is the real name of 'HTML, the living standard',
> is up to the WHATwg.
> Or perhaps you assume that because it was filed under HTML5, Ian is
> not going to look at it? Ian said in the WHATwg that he is also going
> to try to follow up on bugs in the HTMLwg space. For some existing
> bugs, he has cloned them - apparently so he can solve them more
> freely, under the WHATwg umbrella. Responsibility to be in sync goes
> both ways.
> Henri proposed that there should be a HTML.next option in the HTMLwg
> space of the W3 bugzilla. If you think that the adaptive image thing
> should not be in HTML5 but in W3's next iteration of HTML, then that
> is something I can understand. But I cannot understand it if you
> think the bug is invalid because it was filed under the wrong
> organizational umbrella.
> I don't see that it is important to the WHATwg whether it occurs in
> HTML5 or HTML.W3.next: After all, for the WHATwg it lands in the
> same spec anyhow.

Given that all the above paragraphs are discussing details of bugzilla
components and I never mentioned bugzilla at all, I can't relate the
comments to my email. Not only did I not mention bugzilla I never said
that this issue or any other shouldn't be considered by W3C or any other


google plus: https:/profiles.google.com/d.p.carlisle
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 18:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:25 UTC