W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] some issues

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:04:48 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104070708045300208c@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> The W3C doesn't distinguish between a company asserting intentions to
> submit, and employees of that company asserting such intentions.

Oh right, where abouts is this in the process, I appreciate you're not
too aware with it - even if they weren't particularly interested in
enforcing the rules.

> Anyway, as I've mentioned before, we don't know. There are good arguments
> for several organisations.

So what's your response to C Williams points which have generally been
agreed with on this post that the W3c is the only appropriate
organisation (due to the changing of a W3c spec and others not wanting
to tread on toes.)  You seem to have missed that part here.

> > There's no feedback from standards orgs being solicited in any of the
> > specs at this time.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain?

Just what I say, there's no feedback from standards orgs being
solicited - you've just got the mailing list, no active solicitation
from standards orgs (this was a comment in response to one about
standards orgs, I'm not saying it's a bad thing)

> >>    So do we tell everyone with web-enabled phones "tough luck"?
> >
> > Currently the spec only claims to extend HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1, it
> > makes no mention of XHTML Basic at all.  So that looks like what's
> > happening...
> 
> The position paper that Opera and Mozilla wrote a few weeks ago and that
> forms the much of the basis for this work points out that device-specific
> profiles are a bad thing.

Right, I don't particularly see the relevance to the comment, I in
general agree with it, but as we can see even Opera is over a version
behind on the mobile platform despite their much vaunted single
codebase, and even then, even my most advanced phone fails to render
most pages as it runs out of memory.    Also there's the fact that
authoring for the devices is different (ask any designer) so even if
the markup works the same people will generally still be wanting to
design device orientated sites.

> Thus, Web Forms 2.0 is designed to be
> implementable on mobile UAs from the start, and no mobile-specific profile
> is required.

So RAM needs of Opera are a couple of MB these days?  How many phones
are up to running tt these days, about 15% ?  What are you going to do
with the other 85%?  Including all the legacy ones - remember the pace
of phone upgrades are slowing down.

So you're saying that the current consensus of this list is that XHTML
Basic is not appropriate for WF-2 ?  (I've not seen this, so far I've
seen me saying for, you saying against - that ain't consensus)

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 08:04:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC