- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:40:54 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: >>> Which means the *last* thing one should use as a yardstick by which to >>> determine inclusion in a standard, is whether it has been adopted by >>> one or other browser vendor! >> When a feature has failed for a decade in terms of implementation >> priorities, I think it reasonable to consider implementation status-- >> especially if we wish the spec move to REC one day with two full >> interoperable *implementations*. > > But you don't offer any "reasonable" criteria on which to suggest that > @cite or any other feature has "failed". Obviously you can keep > asserting that the acid test is whether browser vendors chose to > implement something, but I'm sorry, that argument is really difficult > to take seriously when viewed in the light of the browser stagnation > of the last few years. A reasonable criteria is this: is anyone using @cite for something compelling? Even though @cite is not specially handled by browsers, javascript could be used to provide any special in-page processing required. Alternatively the use might be directed at some non-browser UA. To me a necessary condition for a use to be compelling is that the functionality provided does not depend on a specific agreement between the content producer and consumer about the semantics of the attribute beyond those of HTML 4. Are there such examples for @cite? I do not recall encountering any use at-all let alone any compelling use. -- "Mixed up signals Bullet train People snuffed out in the brutal rain" --Conner Oberst
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 22:41:05 UTC