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 17:46:49 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104070709462f02b35c@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:31:23 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> That is a good argument for submitting these specifications to the W3C.
> Arguments against are the W3C membership's lack of interest in developing
> HTML, as noted at the recent workshop on Web Applications.  Arguments in
> favour of ECMA are that JavaScript was well-handled by the ECMA group.
> Arguments in favour of IETF are similar to the Atom group's arguments.

So you specifically disagree with the consensus that I've seen on the
mailing list (there's only really been one dissenting voice) that the
W3 is the only sensible organisation for taking this draft too.  Could
you explain your reasons behind this disagreement?  Citing the posts
etc. that have led you to your decision.

> >> 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?
> 
> I can't comment on figures, but Web Forms 2 doesn't really add much to
> the requirements.

Er, no probably not, my point was those requirements are already way
too high for supporting generic HTML on the mobile client today, which
is why we have XHTML Basic.  Just wishing it away is pointless.
 
> > 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)
> 
> I haven't said XHTML Basic is not appropriate for WF-2.
> 
> I've said XHTML Basic is not appropriate, full stop.

Yes, but that is just _your_ opinion, it is not the current consensus
of this list, if you wish to say that it is, then you need to start
backing it up with some reasoning.  As it's far from what I've seen
reflected here.

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 09:46:49 UTC

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