- From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:48:48 +0200
- To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
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