- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:43:03 +0300
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
David Carlisle, Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:12:26 +0100: > On 25/07/2012 13:45, Laura Carlson wrote: >> It would be good to get other opinions. Should specification of >> adaptive images be postponed? What do working group members think are >> the pros and cons of postponing? > > HTML5 makes a lot of sense as a stable, edited version of HTML, > that people and HTML generators can target. > > But as such, it should be a _subset_ of the facilities implemented in > browsers. Editorial work on HTML5 should be restricted to clarifying and > formalising the moving target which is that WhatWG spec and actual > implementation coverage. ... > So given the model of a continuous development happening at WhatWG ... What you say here is not without links to reality. However, I think you make up the bill without the hosts. E.g. the WhatWg offer their own "web developers' edition" of HTML5 - which supposedly is "for people", as you say. Even HTML5 itself, as produced by W3, comes in two editions. I also don't think there is consensus that creativity should only happen within the WHATwg space. So while individuals within each group might agree with you, I don't think that whether the WHATWG or the HTMLwg subscribe to the model you present. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 17:43:46 UTC