- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:16:42 +0200
- To: ifette@google.com
- CC: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, marcosc@opera.com, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Hi, Folks- Sorry to jump in on this thread so late; I've been busy and traveling. As W3C Team Contact for this group, I strongly agree with Ian here regarding the tone of some of the responses. Technical comments on this list should be treated with the respect they are due. If you feel something has been adequately covered in the archives, point to an example email. Please keep this list civil, technical, and productive. On a logistical level, I again agree with Ian. I'm rather disappointed that we can't solve this problem more quickly. I think Gregg raised worthwhile use cases and points for consideration [1], and wonder if this might not be dealt with in the Widgets Embedding spec... after all, that is intended for the latter case he mentions. I can think of many worse things than having 2 alternate compression schemes, if the use cases are different. (Yes, I realize I'm speaking loosely and there might be serious technical problems with this approach... I'm just brainstorming here.) Aaron Boodman suggested something [2] on the WHATWG list that sounds suspiciously like Widgets, and it would be a real shame to miss out on this opportunity for increasing the applicability of the Widgets specs in multiple scenarios and platforms. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0349.html [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026488.html Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 04:16:51 UTC