W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [public-html] <none>

From: Gareth Hay <ghay@garaidh.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:23:20 +0100
Message-Id: <662A0B18-6061-4C0C-86ED-4D08FA99E3A6@garaidh.com>
Cc: W3C List <public-html@w3.org>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
To: Jeff Cutsinger <jeff@cutsinger.org>

On 27 Apr 2007, at 15:04, Jeff Cutsinger wrote:

> Gareth Hay wrote:
>> If we discount the possibility of another browser manufacturer  
>> entering
>> the market for a moment.
> Competition is overrated. It only benefits the consumer.

Reading is overrated. It only leads to understanding.

>> html5 pages. Creating an HTML5 only browser frees us of the legacy
>> nonsense. (as that is effectively what would be happening)
> Yes. Because once we have an HTML5 only browser, all the legacy  
> content
> on the web will just magically disappear!
>> It's not as if we are going to remove legacy browsers as new HTML5
>> browsers come along.
>> I don't think it is realistic to have one browser to render 100%  
>> of the
>> web. It's just not, so let's get with the program that will give  
>> us this
>> solution in a reasonable amount of time.
> Great! I love the idea of using 10 different programs to browse the  
> web!

Well why didn't you say. You have the perfect solution. Let's just  
write HTML5 browsers because Jeff says the rest of the web will  
See I can make stupid points based loosely on the quoted text above  
too. It's fun.

Besides, I'm only asking you keep your current Firefox, and then use  
the new Standards browser, or as I may have suggested, Have 1 browser  
with 2 different modes - but do it properly, instead of the quirks  
mode mess we have, but hey sensationalise and say 10 programs, cos  
that's nearly what I suggested.

>> I don't see the problem, release HTML5 as "Web 2.0" and tell everyone
>> they need a new browser, problem solved, you want Web2.0 sites,  
>> you need
>> the new browser (just keep your old browser for the rest of the web)
> You know, you have a great point. Reality doesn't matter at all. We'll
> simply get everyone to believe that something that is already here is
> actually not and you need a new browser to get the same  
> functionality as
> already exists. Companies will be happy to implement their apps in  
> such
> a way that requires the consumer to download, install, and use a new
> program, for no apparent reason at all. I'm sure that the fact that  
> this
> is completely untrue will have no bearing on its success.
> <jeff.vcf>

So if we live in your reality, which I take it you are speaking for  
the whole world, we have to write browser to parse EVERY html ever,  
even if badly written and produce web pages that function and look  
identical across all potential browsers.

After all, it's not like MS ever releases new versions of it's  
products that require you to import and re-save old documents is it?
Why is the web exempt from this process? Why are you striving for  
what can at most be a complete mess?
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 14:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC