W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

RE: View Source

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:34:02 -0400
To: "'Doug Schepers'" <schepers@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045a01c9a6b9$98e47780$caad6680$@com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Doug Schepers
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:53 PM
> To: www-svg@w3.org
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: View Source
> Hi, Rick-
> Rick wrote (on 3/16/09 9:31 PM):
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jeff Schiller<codedread@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>  On 3/16/09, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org>  wrote:
> >>  HTML WG members have stated that they will not put any UI
> requirements
> >>  in HTML and leave them as *should* statements or recommendations or
> >>  whatever because it might not make sense for every UA... I
> personally
> >>  think your conditional requirement is fine.  In the end, browser
> >>  vendors are free to implement whatever parts of the spec though, so
> >>  even if it was a conditional requirement, some browsers might just
> >>  ignore it.
> >
> > I totally agree with the sentiment that the spec should not dictate
> UI
> > requirements.
> Why?
> I don't agree with it, as a developer, because I want to have certain
> constants in my application development environment that go beyond
> rendering the document.  This is a big advantage that environments like
> Air and Silverlight have.

The HTML spec is NOT a "web browser" spec. Indeed, the reason why the Web has evolved as quickly as it has, is precisely because browsers are free to innovate and invent above and beyond how they handle HTML (or course, many of us wish they would stop "innovating" and "inventing" when it comes to how they handle HTML, but that's another story...).

Every UI spec makes certain assumptions about things which this spec has no control over. How do we know that the "web browser" will have access to a right mouse button? Or even have an input device with an analogue to a mouse? What if we discuss screen resolutions, and in 5 years, 24" screens are considered "small"? Etc. etc. etc. What about mobile devices, which have amazing variety in input methods? What if someone pioneers a new accessibility device which completely shatters all assumptions about how disabled people use computers? Etc. etc. etc.

The last thing the web needs is for this group to be writing UI specs.

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 04:35:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC