W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2007

[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

From: Joseph Daniel Zukiger <joseph_daniel_zukiger@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <931740.92868.qm@web60725.mail.yahoo.com>
>[...]  That's all.  You're all
> behaving as if you had 
> some toys and they've been taken away,

What do they say about the difference between the men
and the boys?

> and neither
> are true. 

Tools, toys, what's the difference?

> [...]
> Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. 

By whom?

> It was a
> reasonable 

... to some ...

> request to 
> reflect work in progress.

Progress? 

>  He did not take
> unilateral action.
> 
> >and you haven't answered the IMPORTANT questions.
> I'll re-state:
> >
> >1.) Does not implementing a SHOULD recommendation
> make a browser 
> >non-complaint (as far as validation goes)?
> 
> Formally, no.

Then why do Nokia, Apple, and Leviathan take exception
to the recommendation? Without, as has been hammered
at, a suitable substitute?

> >2.) What companies (if any) would abandon HTML5
> based on a SHOULD 
> >recommendation?
> 
> This is unknown.

True, and a point that keeps getting dodged. Why?

> >4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source
> from providing 
> >Ogg support on Safari and Nokia browsers?
> 
> Nothing, but if the spec. required the support, the
> browser makers 
> cannot claim conformance.

If the browser makers provide a plugin interface for
dropping 3rd party support in, and the spec only says
SHOULD, the job is done.

Has Steve become so much afraid of the GPL? If so,
why? What does the board of directors want that open
source prevents, other than that trip down memory lane
to the fantasy land of patronage?

> >5.) Why are we waiting for ALL parties to agree
> when we all know 
> >they won't? Why can't the majority have their way
> in the absence of 
> >100% agreement?
> 
> Because we have the time to try to find a solution
> everyone can get 
> behind. 

If there were such a solution, I suppose there might
be time enough.

We all know there isn't. 

As long as the dinosaurs in the discussion insist that
a SHOULD is a MUST.

> It's not as if we are holding final
> approval of HTML5 on 
> this issue.  There is plenty of technical work to do
> (even on the 
> video and audio tags) while we try to find the best
> solution. We 
> don't need a vote.

We didn't need this discussion, either.

> >6.) How much compelling content is required before
> the draft is 
> >reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling?
> 
> When will I stop beating my wife?  Your question has
> a false 
> assumption in it, that we are waiting for compelling
> content in order 
> to revert the draft. We're not.  We're working on
> understanding.

What understanding?

> As Ian has said, we are going in circles on this
> list, with much heat 
> and very little if any new light.  Can we stop? 

Who started it?

There are several brake levers on this train, and then
there is the option to start pulling the track. I'm
personally in favor of pulling the track, but that's
just me. I have no fondness for overloaded angle
brackets.

Who started it? Their hand is closest to the brakes.
The other option is not the brakes that this working
group wants to invoke.

> It
> is getting quite 
> tedious to hear see the same strawmen bashed on
> again and again.

Calling them strawmen doesn't make them magically lose
substance.

joudanzuki


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 06:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC