W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2011

Re: follow up on the discussion in HTML5 about metadata access

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:02:40 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTikR=dEhjn9qGy6A6sQ_sznTUct0TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Ha! I've managed to offend everyone and it's now also on www-archive@w3.org. :-)

But seriously: we were talking about introducing an API for media
elements into HTML and I was arguing on this background. Any other
format is irrelevant in this context, but in particular formats that
Web browser don't even interpret natively. I was defining the "Web" on
that background and most certainly very tightly.

I am sure in the general case you will define that term more broadly,
but that was just irrelevant in the context of the thread, which I
used it for. I was trying to make a point about the relevance of that

Anyway - apologies to everyone who took that as an offense.

Best Regards,

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Only in the way that PDF, smil, flash, or any other non-HTML content can be called "web content".
> I don't think that the folks involved in svg, css, or js would be happy
> to read this. :)
> Anything that can be put on an HTTP server is contributing to the
> content of the Web. For sure, some data formats have more value than
> others, because they have different properties (open, hypertext links,
> widely used, supported in major Web browser, etc.), but there's still on
> the Web and are still Web content. For example, the content provided by
> sites like youtube is web content, whether you like their use of flash
> or not. Web applications are also part of the Web as well, despite the
> fact that most of them don't provide links to reference their state, and
> therefore are unfriendly to HTTP cache servers or SEO engines.
>>  IMO they are not a native part of the web, but an adjunct and require extra plugins to work in the Web browser.
> They're part of the Web, but they are certainly not as valuable as the
> most deployed features of HTML. The HTML track element has currently
> less value than XSLT on the Web, just because it's not as well deployed,
> but still it's part of the Web and its value will increase in the
> rapidly upcoming years. SMIL never found its way into major Web browsers
> nor did it manage to deploy a significant set of clients, thus its value
> is more limited than HTML. Content that is served by a Web server and is
> only usable in one specific iphone app has almost no value on the Web,
> but the value of this web content is still not 0.
> For sure, the most valuable Web content is content that is specified by
> a royalty-free widely-used interoperable deployed and well implemented
> HTTP-friendly IRI-friendly open standard specification.
> Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 02:03:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:37 UTC