- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:02:40 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Jul 7, 2009, at 01:30 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> The downside is that it would not match reality.
>
> I think it would be harmful to spec something that is actively
> different
> than what a browser vendor will implement. This is why HTML5 started
> --
> because the W3C wrote specs that were idealistic and did not match the
> actual deployed landscape.
At this point I'm only aware of one browser vendor having said they
wouldn't do this. Am I wrong? Since when does a single vendor get a
veto?
At this point we have multiple implementations of a feature that has
strong backing in the community, and that we have no reason to believe
isn't interoperable. That's reality. I'm all for listening to vendors,
but once in a while they'll get something wrong and change their
minds. Had we dropped the ball when Netscape said they would never
support CSS, or the W3C DOM, we'd be in a worse place than we are now.
If Theory really does not fly in the end, then there's plenty of time
to remove it later. But at this point it is premature and unrealistic
to remove it.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 09:03:16 UTC