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

Re: Proposed adaptive image element

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:42:50 +0300
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120726234250471237.e36d0315@xn--mlform-iua.no>
David Carlisle, Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:57:30 +0100:
> 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)

All views in this group are private until there is consensus about them.

> 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.

You may sell the WHATwg spec that way. But that is not how Ian sells it.

 [ snipped-a-lot]

> 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
> organisation.

Sorry about that. But in in your initial reply to Laura, when she asked 
about postponing, you did not not, in my view, have to bring in the 
question of WHATwg vs W3. But that is what you did. I can only 
speculate why. (And that was what I did.) I do find the HTMLwg bugzilla 
components more relevant to her question, than the WHATwg topic.

To her question, then I suspect it could be a hot candidate for W3's 
HTML.next.
-- 
Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 20:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC