- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:28:34 +0100
- To: "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:16:02 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > I think authoring conformance requrements are not served well by the > living standard model, there is no certainty over the rules that > authors should follow. > also including things that are half-baked (hgroup springs to mind) in a > standard can potentially mislead developers, waste time thier time and > undermine the concept of web (authoring) standards. > > While the commit then review on an unversioned docuemnt may be a useful > method for the development of new features it does not follow that it is > a good method for the authoring practices that accompany features. > While the brower vendors may control what is implemented , they do not > and should not control the authoring conformance requirements associated > with > imlementations. How do you tell what is half-baked and what is ready though? <canvas> is maybe not ready, but people are using it. Should they have waited five-to-ten years until we figured it out more? What about XMLHttpRequest? How do you tell something is ready for authors? Was <style> ready for authors when HTML4 shipped? Per HTML4 its media="" attribute defaults to "screen", an ugly bug and never fixed. Is that better than being able to quickly fix such mistakes? Would we have known <hgroup> might not be the best approach if we had not exposed it to the web? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 13:29:11 UTC