Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you support these change proposals

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
>> I'll also note that I haven't yet heard anyone representing a browser
>> developer arguing against these elements. I would further assume that
>> no browser developer is going to argue for putting features in the
>> spec that they don't intend to implement.
>
> Ian once explained his nine step procedure [1] for adding new features
> to the spec.
>
> He concluded by saying that the default state for a feature request is
> for it to be rejected and the default state for a section of the spec
> was for it to be eventually dropped unless the feature is widely
> implemented and so important that browser vendors "are actually ready
> to commit money and risk interop issues over it".
>
> Are these elements widely implemented?
>
> Are they so important that browser vendors are actually ready to
> commit money and risk interop issues over them?

I don't think these elements could be considered widely implemented
no. But it seems like webkit is far enough that it seems like they are
prepared to commit. And while I can't speak for other people working
with mozilla, the general feeling I have is that we are commited to
implementing these features in Firefox. This of course includes
implementing the accessibility needs for them.

I don't know about Opera or Microsoft. But if they really didn't want
to implement them I would have expected them to speak up in support
for removing them from the spec. I know I have in the past when there
has been aspects of the spec that I didn't want to implement.

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0140.html

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 21:08:17 UTC