Re: Proposed adaptive image element

David Carlisle, Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:01:27 +0100:
> On 26/07/2012 18:43, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> 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.
> The web developers edition is a mechanically subsetted version, with
> different css styling so isn't really relevant to the discussion of
> the dangers of diverging forked development.

It is relevant to your claim that HTML5 is focused only on "people". 
Obviously it is isn't: HTML5 is large enough even if the canonical 
living standard is larger. And both groups tries to cater for "people", 
mechanically and otherwise.

>> 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.
> The W3C announcement eg as phrased at
> is basically in line with what I said. This HTML WG should work towards
> HTML5 and the WHAT CG  should work on

That post does not say what the WHATwg should work on. It also does not 
say that W3 is not going to work on 

> All I was saying if that we are planning to add new features to HTML
> beyond what is currently specified in HTML5 then common sense dictates
> that they be compatible with

Whether '' is the real name of 'HTML, the living standard', is 
up to the WHATwg. 

Or perhaps you assume that because it was filed under HTML5, Ian is not 
going to look at it? Ian said in the WHATwg that he is also going to 
try to follow up on bugs in the HTMLwg space. For some existing bugs, 
he has cloned them - apparently so he can solve them more freely, under 
the WHATwg umbrella. Responsibility to be in sync goes both ways.

Henri proposed that there should be a option in the HTMLwg 
space of the W3 bugzilla. If you think that the adaptive image thing 
should not be in HTML5 but in W3's next iteration of HTML, then that is 
something I can understand. But I cannot understand it if you think the 
bug is invalid because it was filed under the wrong organizational 

I don't see that it is important to the WHATwg whether it occurs in 
HTML5 or After all, for the WHATwg it lands in the same 
spec anyhow.
Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 18:48:01 UTC