- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:13:38 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> > >>>> Even if a better place can be found, why not follow your previous >>>> policy of adding a section to HTML5 and moving it out if/when a >>>> better venue is found? >>> Because this isn't required for interop, and so it's not critical. >> Required for interop? I'm confused. > > I mean that we don't have to have a spec to get browsers to all implement > PNG or DOM2 Core. The whole point of the proposed spec would have been to > document what interop exists, and what interop browser vendors predict the > next generation will have, so such a spec by definition wouldn't be needed > for interop. Thus, since we agree that on the long term it doesn't belong > in HTML5, it doesn't make sense to add it to HTML5 just to remove it > later. This is unlike other features that we added then removed later, > which were added because there was an immediate need for a spec to obtain > interop amongst interested implementors. You lost me again, and furthermore you are asserting an agreement on a topic that I don't recall expressing an opinion on. The original topic was "required for interop". If the goal of HTML 5 is to document what interop exists at this point in time in 2009, then HTML 5 would have no video tag at all; instead HTML 5 would document how YouTube currently works. Until other things that are intended to be split out later are, in fact, split out I don't see any point in discussing further what the final form of the document will be. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 10:14:20 UTC