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

Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 00:35:46 +0200 (CEST)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <tkrat.eaff7f7dc51ae274@greytower.net>

On 30 Apr, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>>   Does that mean we should add FONT to the standard? The WHAT WG  
>> seem to think so - I disagree; as does most everyone I know who work with  
>> the web.
> Browsers are going to implement it whether the standard describes it  
> or not - so they may as well implement it interoperably in a way  
> defined by spec. Note that although the WHATWG spec requires UAs to  

  So, basically, you are saying that no matter what anyone ELSE might
  say, the browser vendors will implement exactly what they WANT to


>> That's not enough. We /also/ need things in the specs that browser
>> vendors might not want, or to do things in ways /they/ don't  
>> want; but users might still need, require, wish ... this is a two-way
>> street.
> If none of the browser vendors want to do something, then the spec  
> saying so isn't going to make a difference. It will just increase  
> disrespect for the spec. XHTML2 is a veritable treasure trove of  

  Again: if a feature X is added to the specification because a majority
  of those working on it agree it is necessary or wanted, but the
  browser vendors /disagree/ - it'll simply be ignored?

  It IS a two way street. Browser writers get to give their input,
  authors get to participate, accessibility experts have their say, and
  the resulting document and specification ...

  Well, if the browser vendors are going to ignore everything but what
  they themselves want?

> You also have an explicit call in your message for doing things the  
> browser vendors don't want. Not even a specific list, just a claim  
> that "We /also/ need things in the specs that browser vendors might  
> not want, or to do things in ways /they/ don't want," on the  
> assumption that what browser vendors collectively want must be bad  
> for users and developers in some way. I find this to be a poor  
> attitude to take going in.

  Excuse me? You find it a "poor attitude" when I suggest that there may
  be other input than that coming from the browser vendors which have
  value to users and authors - despite what said browser vendors might

  A joke, surely?

 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 22:35:49 UTC

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