Re: Proposed adaptive image element

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:46:12 +0200, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>>  I would argue that
>>  almost all new features should go to the continuous "living
>>  standard" version first.
>
> One of the problems with that approach is accessibility of the
> features may be lacking when it reaches the HTML WG level thus
> requiring retrofitting, i.e. canvas. My hope is that an accessible
> adaptive image element is specified by design.

Ditto. But to me that suggests what I think David is saying - let's figure
out how the thing has to work before we try to push it into a particular
version... In particular, I am not sure we will get this right if we are
trying to wedge it into HTML5 (which is by and large stuff that was
deployed years ago, and a few things that we are still cleaning up like
video after the benefit of a few years of working with it).

In practice, building a spec, deploying it in browsers and content so we
get implementation experience, and then blending it into the HTML.next as
a fundamental piece seems a better approach than trying to get it all into
HTML5. After all we already assume there will be another version that will
be more or less a set of extensions and improvements to HTML5. (Although
we did assume that with HTML 4, it didn't really work out that way for a
few years - so being watchful is important).

I don't care if stuff is taken up by WHATWGCG, by web apps, by HTMLWG -  
doing the work carefully is important. Different people prefer to work in  
different places, but I think what is important is to engage with the  
people who are developing a technology and try to get it right first time,  
rather than waiting for them to take it to a different forum just because  
it is easier or more comfortable for me to work there. (Much as I would  
*like* to have everything done in the places I am most comfortable... and  
to be right always and to find the answer easily...)

Cheers

Chaals

> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> If new features requiring browser implementation are added to HTML5
>> without being implemented in browsers and without being added to the
>> WhatWG version then that is going to be confusing for everybody and
>> makes HTML5 lose its rationale as being a stable snapshot of the ongoing
>> html development.
>>
>> So given the model of a continuous development happening at WhatWG
>> (either thought of as an organisation or as a W3C Community Group) and
>> development of numbered specifications happening here, I would argue
>> that almost all new features should go to the continuous "living
>> standard" version first. (Practically speaking that is likely to be the
>> quickest root to getting trial implementations in browsers as well).
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
>> and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
>> Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
>>
>> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
>> powered by MessageLabs.
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Chaals - standards declaimer

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 09:49:19 UTC