- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:07:24 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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