- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:07:47 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, Ian Hickson wrote: >How are Flash and Silverlight not UI languages? I would say both Flash and Silverlight can be USED as UI languages, as can HTML; however, that's not all they are. Flash is an animation language, for example; Silverlight is an application language (deeper than just UI). >> This specification is independent of various vendor markup languages >> such as XUL, Flash, Silverlight and others. As an openly developed >> language, HTML5 provides non-proprietary solutions to many of the same >> problems, but is not guaranteed to be a replacement for any or all of >> the features of these languages. > >This doesn't mention the risk of vendor lock-in and the benefit of vendor >neutrality, which are two of the most important points made in the current >paragraph, IMHO. As Justin James just responded, I think anyone reading this section of the HTML5 spec probably doesn't need to be lectured on the benefit of vendor neutrality, but I'm happy to add a sentence that describes that - e.g., tacking on a sentence at the end that says "HTML5 is intended to be a vendor-neutral language, implemented by a large number of vendors across a broad range of scenarios." "Vendor lock-in" is an offensive phrase, and I would prefer that we not try to make the W3C HTML5 specification a political manifesto. -Chris
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 01:07:37 UTC