- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:33:21 -0500
- To: William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>
- CC: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net
William Loughborough wrote: > I guess it depends on which "October" you're talking about! > > This whole "war" over HTML 5 seems to ignore the fact that although it's > easy enough for vendors to implement many of its points, on the whole > this thing will take many years to complete and then it will be totally > obsolete. > > Love. I did not mention any "war", and I humbly suggest that you trimmed too much in my email; enough so that you may have missed my point entirely. The issue I raised was not one of new features that may or may not be implemented in the near or even far future. Instead I mentioned that the HTML 5 specification, as currently drafted, marks as non-conformant a number of features that are present in HTML 4 and are widely and interoperably implemented in browsers today Gaining consensus that such features should not [removed or not be added, depending on your perspective] from/to HTML 5 is something that I don't see us gaining consensus on any time soon, and remains the largest hurdle I see for this working group to get to Last Call. > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote: > > ...I remain deeply skeptical on the notion of this working group > reaching Last Call in October. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 16:33:55 UTC