W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

RE: 1.5.4 title and content

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 02:06:28 +0000 (UTC)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0902030159170.952@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > > 1.  "Proprietary" [...]
> > I'd be happy to change "proprietary" to "vendor-specific".
> Then we would need to count how many vendors implement or support or use 
> HTML5 as you have specified in your document, vs. how many vendors have 
> implemented or support or use Flash and Silverlight, in order to 
> determine whether your document is any less "vendor-specific" than Flash 
> or Silverlight, and we would need to discuss whether "implement" or 
> "support" or "use" are the right factors that make one thing over 
> another more or less "vendor-specific", and whether "vendor-specific" is 
> an appropriate topic for discussion in a W3C technical specification.

The point that is being conveyed here is that Flash, Silverlight, XUL, and 
other technologies like them, are under the ultimate control of a single 
vendor. This is in stark difference to open standards, which are developed 
specifically for the purpose of having multiple competing implementations.

I think the word "proprietary", or the phrase "single-vendor", conveys 
this point adequately, but if you have another word or phrase that you 
think conveys it better, I'm certainly happy to consider that too. 

> > > 1.  "language": Neither Flash" nor Silverlight are languages. [...]
> > I'd be happy to change "language" to "platform".
> But the document you have written is not a platform.

I'd be happy to only change "language" to "platform" in the places that 
describe the technologies you agree are platforms, if you so desire. I'd 
also be happy to change the text to refer to the open Web platform, and to 
refer to HTML5 as just one component of that platform, if that would be 

> > >  1.  "Similar" [...]
> >
> > I'd be happy to change "similar" to "other".
> I don't know how to compare your specification of a language to "other" 
> specifications without actually enumerating the languages you are 
> comparing to, because each is different.

The specification does enumerate three. I am happy to add more.

> Java is another platform for web interactivity, and has an associated 
> language.

I agree that Java is of relevance here, and would be happy to add it if 
you so desire.

> So is JPEG2000 JFIF.

I don't think that JPEG2000 JFIF really has any relevance here.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 02:07:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC