- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:00:02 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10902 --- Comment #43 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2010-10-13 19:00:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #41) > Please don't take offense at this, but this almost seems like you're saying > that we should just wait until the browsers determine what we should have, and > then they'll let us add this to a future version of HTML. Basically, yes, that's what he's saying. It's part of the normal spec development process for HTML5: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F Interest by some notable implementers is essential in getting things added to the spec. Otherwise you end up speccing things that no one cares about. > Remember, HTML isn't only consumed by browsers. And browsers aren't the only > gatekeeper for the spec. If there were a substantial non-browser implementation that was interested, that would count too. But hypothetical implementations that may or may not exist don't count. Otherwise you wind up wasting your time writing a spec that almost no one will use in practice. This is one of the core philosophical differences between HTML5 and XHTML2: spec what implementers want to implement, nothing more or less. > Bugs are not a particularly good place to have general discussions. > Unfortunately, with the HTML WG procedures, I'm not sure what other venue is > available for these discussions to take place. public-html is the correct place within the HTML WG. The whatwg list would also work, although of course that's part of the WHATWG and not the W3C. However, you aren't going to make progress without a specific proposal, or list of goals and detailed explanation of the use-case, drafted with the input of someone who wants to implement it in a major implementation -- most likely a browser. -- 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 Wednesday, 13 October 2010 19:00:04 UTC