- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > That is incorrect. For instance, many document management systems > > > run only in intranets, yet they still need to support a wide variety > > > of user agents (not controlled by the vendors of these systems). > > > > Sure, but if there's a problem, the vendor gets called on it and fixes > > it. > > Incorrect again. The vendors of these systems have little control about > the UA vendor's bug fixing (I'm talking from experience here). The UA isn't necessarily the one that gets fixed. > > No need for a standard there. This is unlike an open environment like > > the Web where the consumer, the producer, and the UA vendor might have > > no relationship whatsoever. > > Actually, it's very similar. I disagree, but I don't see any way to convince you. > > Again, I'm not saying a standard isn't useful in these cases, just > > that supporting those cases isn't our goal, and can't be without > > compromising on our other more important goals regarding the open Web, > > as discussed here: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0242.html > > Not sure what part of that mail you're referring to. In particular, I > wasn't talking about supporting proprietary features likes ActiveX > controls. I was referring to the last few paragraphs where I describe how this affects development of open Web specifications. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 09:08:19 UTC