- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:18:48 +0200
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR 2008-08-25 22.08: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> [...] the draft says [...] > Yes, but the point I (and others) keep trying to make > is that this is what <stress>the editor's draft</> > says : it is up to this WG to discuss this, If I believed otherwise, I would have said 'specification' and not 'draft'. > If, every time someone > points out that some aspect of the current design is > unsatisfactory, the reaction is "but that's > what the draft says", then we may as well all shut > up and go home. Agree. I just wanted to point out that <video> doesn't support fallback - so we react to the fact and not to what we think is the fact. > The whole point of this WG is > to /challenge/ the draft, whenever/wherever it > appears less than ideal : only by so doing will > we (a) remit our brief, as WG members, and (b) have > any hope that the final version of the specification > will will represent the best possible thinking at > this time. Subscribed! =========== -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 20:19:35 UTC