- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:18:12 +0200
- To: public-webapps@w3.org, "Rich Tibbett" <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:41:27 +0200, Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com> wrote: > I know first hand that we don't deal in roadmaps, but should we assign > some priority to fleshing out such a fundamental element as <device>? <device> was proposed to the DAP WG, not the WebApps WG. Other than that detailed planning of new features does not really work well. They need to evolve iteratively and at this point I think we need some kind of experimental implementation to see whether the feature can work at all. That will also give us a better idea whether overloading <device> is a sensible idea. Overloading went pretty badly with <object>. There are some advantages with <input>, but overall the design is ugly. Maybe here it makes sense but we should do some prototyping to be sure. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 12:18:58 UTC