- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:36:26 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 --- Comment #12 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2009-09-18 20:36:26 --- (In reply to comment #11) > > How is it relevant whether a specific technology has the same level of > > "deployed success"? > > If you're trying to work out whether a technology is usable or not, then it > being successful or not is a useful indicator. Depends on a certain definition of "successful". Is WebDAV successful? Is Atom? Is JCR? Is CMIS? Is Docbook? Is XSLT? > > And it it's relevant, why does HTML5 include tons of stuff that hasn't any > > "deployed success" at all? > > The things that haven't had much deployed success are either obsoleted (like > profile="") or mostly harmless (like <kbd>). As far as I know, none of the new > features rely on design patterns that we have reason to believe won't succeed. > If I'm wrong about this, please file bugs about them. Microdata. Ping. And probably lots more I haven't noticed yet. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 20:36:39 UTC