- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:24:08 +0200
* James Graham wrote: >I think you are mistaking a requirement for all UAs with one for UAs that >support the display of images. For UAs that support the display of images, >authors rely on GIF, JPEG and PNG support being avaliable. The specifcation >should reflect the reality that any UA with image support that intends to work >on the web must support these formats. Any mass-market user agent that "intends to work on the web" must support some recent version of Adobe Flash, XMLHttpRequest, SSL, TLS, IDNs, Cookies, HTTP Basic Auth, a broad range of character encodings, some subset of CSS, XSLT 1.0, a range of URI schemes, and many other things. Why should some of these be called out in the "HTML specification", and if only some of them, why bother with that at all? And what if, say, some consortium of mobile solution provides agree on additional required features, should those also be re-iterated in the "HTML specification"? Clearly it does not help mass-market browser vendors at all if you tell them to support GIF images; and if the specification requires all of, say, GIF, <canvas>, and some socket-based network API, how would that help authors? They would not be helped in their decision what they can use. So, who's this for? -- Bj?rn H?hrmann ? mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de ? http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 ? Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ? http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim ? PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ? http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:24:08 UTC