- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:56:07 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:41:19 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> There is also an objection to naming this attribute "first frame", but >> that objection is a "necessary consequence" of the objection that this >> is already implemented by browsers and used by web pages. > > What does "necessary consequence" mean here? Are any changes that > require changes to deployed browsers going to automatically going to > receive such an objection? While I agree it's good to be conservative > with making changes to UAs which might break existing content, if the > chairs are automatically adding such objections to the mix, they might > want to confer with UAs first to see if they share the concern. > > All UAs have experience with deprecating features. Some are harder to > deprecate than others. The "necessary consequence" was in reference to my objections in the poll: I strongly object to removing the poster attribute, as it is already implemented by browsers and used by web pages. Adding a short text alternative for the placeholder/poster image (which I object to) does not require changing this part of the syntax. As a necessary consequence, I also object to renaming the concept from "poster frame" to "first frame", even though I acknowledge that "poster frame" is by no means a perfect name for the feature. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 07:56:41 UTC